public/private/stable/unstable
Aaron Bentley
aaron at aaronbentley.com
Wed Aug 27 00:09:54 BST 2008
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
John Arbash Meinel wrote:
> Robert Collins wrote:
>
> ...
>
>> And:
>> _ 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 _
>> symbols.
> My personal vote is for _ == either. It is simply a way to convey to people
> wanting to use the api that we don't guarantee it will be preserved without
> warning. A "use at your own risk" flag.
That sounds like "unsupported", not "private".
> I believe Aaron has different feelings. He felt *very* strongly that
> _iter_changes was never-ever supposed to be used by anyone without pushing to
> get it "public" first.
Clearly, we have different notions about what "unsupported" should mean
to the API's user.
I need a way to write code so that I do not have to worry about
backwards compatibility when I change it later. _iter_changes was a
failure in that regard, because we actually deprecated it. That's
technical debt there, debt I thought I was not getting into.
How can I write code without having to worry about backwards compatibility?
> My feeling was that it was there, better than
> everything else, and we just wanted some time to polish it before we committed
> to backwards compatibility.
No, I was waiting for feedback from Rob that never came. That's why I
marked it unstable.
Aaron
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFItI1C0F+nu1YWqI0RAlK1AJ9HPlEWrZknOd2OqtdxOlFoJVwNxwCbB1Ic
Z2kgmcxn4B6S5Blp7ciOSLw=
=Fm6e
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the bazaar
mailing list