Robert Collins robertc at
Tue Aug 26 23:43:57 BST 2008

On Tue, 2008-08-26 at 17:11 -0500, John Arbash Meinel wrote:
> I know we are at a bit of a lack of having enough ways to decorate a
> symbol to
> indicate its public/private status versus its stable/unstable status.
> But
> generally we say that "public apis are stable and will be deprecated,
> etc." So
> I think making it "_log_adapters" is perfectly valid, as we aren't
> guaranteeing to plugins not to change the api without deprecating.

I'm getting pretty fed up with this. I'm getting reviews bounced for
using _, for not using _, for using things that are _ but it was used to
mean unsupported. I can't pick *any* consistent behaviour that doesn't
trigger a review bounce AFAICT. So I'm going on _ strike: I won't use a
leading _ again, regardless of privacy or supported ness until this mess

I'd like to know whether _ means

Can we PLEASE pick ONE, put it in HACKING, and not ever go around this

And after that I never ever ever ever want a review that says FOO is|is
not BAR, give|remove the _, unless BAR matches the BAR we choose _ to

I am so over this.

_ means *either* is fine, as long as no review ever says "dont use
symbol _GAM because its private" when the symbol is actually public but
unsupported. So choosing "means either" will cause reviewers to know
their symbols better, or cause them to stop commenting on usage of _

GPG key available at: <>.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : 

More information about the bazaar mailing list