Mir Version 1, stable ABIs and licences

[Daniel van Vugt]

Alternatively, we can skip the whole "what constitutes 1.0" discussion 
and do the fashionable thing: just make version 0.26 into version 26. :)


On 13/10/16 09:59, Daniel van Vugt wrote:
> My personal view is that we should drop this discussion.
>
> We have been mindful of reducing ABI breaks for years but that gets
> trumped by the need to implement missing features etc.
>
> Mir code landings have been extremely active recently, with thousands of
> lines changing every day or so. And to me that's the opposite of what
> would be happening near a maturation milestone.
>
> I think we should let maturation happen organically. When the changes
> slow down and when we actually haven't broken ABIs for a while, that
> would be the right time to have this discussion.
>
> - Daniel
>
>
> On 07/10/16 23:24, Alan Griffiths wrote:
>> On 04/10/16 09:03, Daniel van Vugt wrote:
>>> This email thread is a mess. Please enable comments in the doc.
>>>
>>> Also I suggest making this a public discussion (CC'd).
>>>
>> Done.
>>
>>
>