Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [cdt-dev] CDT 6.0 and API

Absolutely agree too.
Btw, I thought mailing list discussion is mandatory before,
there is even a bullet on http://wiki.eclipse.org/CDT/policy page about it.

Our design doc on wiki are badly organized now, should we create another page (or re-use existing)
and put links to all release with sublinks to design doc, plans and API changes pages?


Schorn, Markus wrote:
Thanks. We have a history of not doing the obvious. So we need this discussion and also a formal decision on a minimal agreement on how to carry out breaking and non-breaking API changes. For breaking API changes I suggest to have a
* mandatory bugzilla discussion.
* short description with link to the bugzilla on a designated Wiki-page, such that we have an overview
  about the breaking changes.
For non-breaking API changes we could have a mandatory note on the cdt-dev list with a link to the
bugzilla.
Markus.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    *From:* cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
    [mailto:cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] *On Behalf Of *Mikhail Khodjaiants
    *Sent:* Monday, October 20, 2008 1:09 PM
    *To:* CDT General developers list.
    *Subject:* RE: [cdt-dev] CDT 6.0 and API
    *Importance:* Low

    Markus,
If your intention is to make bugzilla discussions on API changes
    mandatory then I support it absolutely. In my opinion the rules you
    are suggesting are so obvious that no discussion is required.
Mikhail

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    *From:* cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
    [mailto:cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] *On Behalf Of *Schorn, Markus
    *Sent:* Monday, October 20, 2008 11:54 AM
    *To:* CDT General developers list.
    *Subject:* RE: [cdt-dev] CDT 6.0 and API

    Mikhail,
    the definition of API is easy, it's the content of all packages that
    are exported as public package in
    the manifest.mf file. The API tooling will use exactly this
    information for performing checks on the API.
    If packages are unintentionally exported as public, we need to
    remove the public export, which is a
    breaking API change.
I did not start and argument about whether API changes are necessary
    or not. I want to discuss, how
    we can carry out API changes in an organized manner. What's your
    opinion on that?
Markus.

        ------------------------------------------------------------------------
        *From:* cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
        [mailto:cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] *On Behalf Of *Mikhail
        Khodjaiants
        *Sent:* Monday, October 20, 2008 12:12 PM
        *To:* CDT General developers list.
        *Subject:* RE: [cdt-dev] CDT 6.0 and API
        *Importance:* Low

        Hi Markus,
On the debugger side we have been following these rules since
        the beginning. And I have always opposed to what Doug calls "a
        cowboy approach".
        But since I have started to look at the other parts of CDT (core
        and build) I have had problems to understand what is meant to be
        API there and what is not. Some developments seem to be started
        but then abandoned. Some old interfaces are marked as deprecated
        without mentioning the replacements for it, others are left
        without deprecation. In some cases I couldn't understand why a
        class or an interface was implemented as public or internal. It
        seems that people who work closely with core (and possibly
        build) have an understanding of what is public but it is not
        obvious for outsiders like myself.
        My opinion is: a serious cleanup is required which may cause an
        API breakage. Not sure if we have resources for it though :(
Regards, Mikhail

        ------------------------------------------------------------------------
        *From:* cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
        [mailto:cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] *On Behalf Of *Schorn, Markus
        *Sent:* Monday, October 20, 2008 10:17 AM
        *To:* CDT General developers list.
        *Subject:* [cdt-dev] CDT 6.0 and API

        Hi committers,
        For two reasons, I am missing a discussion about the planned
        changes to the API.
        * Even if we deliver CDT 6.0 and thus do break API, we should be
        nice to our clients and keep
          the changes to the API minimal. Therefore an API change needs
        some justification. In many cases
          it is possible to provide a fix that only extends, but does
        not break API.
        * A single committer is usually not aware of all the use-cases
        for an API and therefore an API change
          should be discussed before it is carried out.
Basically I would like to know about the planned API changes,
        but I also think that we should take this
        further by making it mandatory to discuss a breaking change to
        AP on bugzilla, first. It is also a good
        habit to inform committers about non-breaking extensions to API.
Please share your opinion,
        Markus.
--
        IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments
        are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the
        intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do
        not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any
        purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium.  Thank you.


------------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
cdt-dev mailing list
cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev
begin:vcard
fn:Elena Laskavaia
n:Laskavaia;Elena
tel;work:x2235
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
version:2.1
end:vcard


Back to the top