On 02/20/2013 10:57 AM, Mark Brown wrote: > On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 10:36:41AM -0700, Stephen Warren wrote: >> On 02/20/2013 10:31 AM, Mark Brown wrote: > >>> Since we can extend the list of clocks it doesn't seem like >>> there's much issue here, especially if some of them are >>> optional? > >> Yes, there's certainly a way to extend the binding in a >> backwards-compatible way. > >> However, I have seen in Rob and/or Grant push back on not fully >> defining bindings in the past - i.e. actively planning to >> initially create a minimal binding and extend it in the future, >> rather than completely defining it up-front. > > That sounds like the current stuff with a minimal definition is > OK?
I'm personally OK with defining a minimal binding first and extending it later. But, I'm worried if when we actually try to extend the binding later, we'll get push-back. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Everyone hates slow websites. So do we. Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics Download AppDynamics Lite for free today: http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_feb _______________________________________________ spi-devel-general mailing list spi-devel-general@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spi-devel-general
