On 08/07/2016 12:52, Emil Velikov wrote:
On 7 July 2016 at 19:08, Quentin Glidic <sardemff7+wayl...@sardemff7.net> wrote:
On 07/07/2016 18:11, Emil Velikov wrote:
On 7 July 2016 at 10:05, Pekka Paalanen <ppaala...@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
Now that you mentioned the semantics could be of upper or lower
limit, the name should imply the meaning. I only thought of using
it as both lower limit (as in pkg-config check) *and* upper limit
(do not declare API that was added after the given version or
remove API that was deprecated after the given version).
Ack. Considering I already know how it would/should be used, I'm a bit
short on unbiased name. Your earlier suggestion sounds great imho, but
if you have something else in mind please share it :-)
However, I also realized something more.
If you do like I suggested for configure.ac, you would have trouble
using pre-releases of libweston.
Pre-releases of, say 1.13.0, will be released as 1.12.9x. That
would be MINOR=12, so if you use the same numbers for both
pkg-config check and for the CPP macro for API, you cannot test the
13 API until it has been finally released.
So maybe those two need to be separate anyway?
The example will cover this confusion, but the gist is that:
- No released version of software X should rely on development
version of libweston/libfoo.
- If there's a serious need to void the above, one should set the
REQUIRED_API to the number it would be in an official/final version.
Example:
libweston (devel. process):
- git tag 1.12.90
- Add API X, guarded behind version 0x010d version check (one could
keep the numbers decimal and/or other)
- other...
User:
- Bump required version to 1.12.90
- Use "-DREQUIRED_API_VERSION=0x010d"
Personally I'm leaning towards adding the define only in the
respective places that need the newer API, but having it in configure
(global scale) would be nice as well.
Regarding that, I’d go the GLib/GTK+ way completely.
That means each function has a
WESTON_AVAILABLE_IN(1, 13)
and *if* a project set
WESTON_VERSION_{MIN,MAX}_ALLOWED, that will make these functions deprecated
(not sure for the ones above the MAX).
IMHO forward compatibility is a more important topic than deprecation.
Thus I've focused on it in order to only make minimal changes. Your
suggestions sounds like the definition of 'complex' from IRC the other
day, but if you want the deprecation mechanism please go ahead.
The maint point is that I would rather have the new functions without
needing to update the define.
That completely defeats the purpose of the whole series.
Or most projects will use 0xffff as the value.
s/most/most of my/ perhaps ? ;-)
Bus seriously, as you noticed before - there is _nothing_ stopping
people from doing extremely stupid things.
If they do - it's up-to them to pick the pieces.
From my limited encounter so far on the wayland ML, it seems that
'compromise' it's conjugated too often :-(
No, that series is still useful. *If* a project wants to be fully
compatible with version x.y, it will define WESTON_MAX_ALLOWED(x, y),
then newer symbols will be hidden.
If you believe most projects will do that, then fine, they want to be
“safe”, they do so, and they are happy.
Meanwhile, I and others who do not care about complete stability (and
more about features) can just use new symbols as they appear.
You said it, nothing will prevent all breakages, so why make it
difficult for the simple case? Simple case being “just use latest
version” (rolling releases distributions).
Deprecation is just the other half of the work, for people wanting to
avoid to-be-deleted stuff.
I would define MIN, not MAX, because I think (my) software should just
go forward.
--
Quentin “Sardem FF7” Glidic
_______________________________________________
wayland-devel mailing list
wayland-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel
