Martin Kalen wrote:
>
> (The following is a personal response and may or may not be in line with my
> company's official opinions.)
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Murray Cumming" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Monday, August 20, 2001 5:48 PM
> Subject: Re: Changing include to include/xercesc - Summary and Vote
>
> > You should expect far more major changes to libraries at certain
> > intervals. A properly maintained library would keep a stable API for a
> > long time, and occasionally make large incompatible changes. If you say
> > that no incompatible changes should ever be made then you are opting for
> > stagnation. However, I repeat that this particular change should require
> > only minimal changes to existing builds.
>
> Nope, I did not (and still don't) say such a thing. I said that I would
> gladly welcome a major change to directory/make-structure if it was just
> that - a major change and I could see all the benefits from it. I clearly
> said that if autoconf support had been there I would happily vote yes for a
> directory renaming. Now it will mean two takes at changing the environment.
A valid point. If this vote isn't passed, then I might suggest a far
more ambitious Xerces-C++2 branch in which we could make far more
ambitious changes.
> And besides - I did not even mention anything about the code or the API. As
> far as I know, those are not related to directory naming.
I often talk about API and build changes together because they both
cause changes to the externally visible developer experience. It's
easier to talk about API stability specifically because C++ is more
clearly defined than build behaviour.
> > Your environment should be able to cope with minor directory renames. If
> > not, then I don't think that we should all be punished for your
> > mistakes.
>
> Sadly enough, the environment is not mine. This is a beast, whose soul came
> alive over ten years ago. But that is slightly off topic... :-)
>
> Please, get off it - I am not punishing you or anyone else for our
> environment. What I did was simply respond to Tinny Ng's request about
> voting and those views presented in the original mail still holds. By
> saying that I think this is a bad idea I am not saying that I think that
> you are a bad person.
I didn't interpret it that way. I'm quite capable of being annoying just
be sticking to the technical details. A vote is a vote, but you should
expect comments to be replied to.
>
> Please reply to my mailbox and not the list if you want to elaborate
> further on this issue.
No need.
--
Murray Cumming
www.murrayc.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
