> And I definitely hope that we after that can stop making incompatible changes as that separations allows us to stop exporting things that are meant to be internal
There are few packages which I think are exported mostly to allow other modules in Oak to work and as such are not like api to be used by end users (like spi.mount, spi.gc and spi.stats). Enforcing full backward compatibility for all spi package would hinder further evolution of design going forward. So would suggest to reconsider this and only version those which are meant to be used by users outside of Oak modules Chetan Mehrotra On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 11:00 PM, Angela Schreiber <anch...@adobe.com.invalid> wrote: > Hi Chetan > > Well... I would have excepted that one goal of the m12n was to get a clear > separation between public API and internals and everything that we target > as API/SPI should be public IMO. > > And I definitely hope that we after that can stop making incompatible > changes as that separations allows us to stop exporting things that are > meant to be internal... > > Angela > > On 14/11/17 18:10, "Chetan Mehrotra" <chetan.mehro...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>Do we want to have explicit version for all packages in oak-core-spi >>or should we only do it for packages which we expect code outside of >>Oak codebase would be using? As once we version it we cannot change in >>backward incompatible way easily >>Chetan Mehrotra >> >> >>On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 10:05 PM, Angela Schreiber >><anch...@adobe.com.invalid> wrote: >>> Hi Robert >>> >>> Ok... I will add 1.0.0 and go ahead tomorrow unless someone objects. >>> >>> Kind regards >>> Angela >>> >>> On 14/11/17 17:23, "Robert Munteanu" <romb...@apache.org> wrote: >>> >>>>On Tue, 2017-11-14 at 13:51 +0000, Angela Schreiber wrote: >>>>> Any preference wrt the initial version number? >>>> >>>>The initial version number should be 1.0.0 IMO. >>>> >>>>Robert >>> >
