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

Wiki page I created for this:
http://wiki.eclipse.org/CDT/designsByRelease/API6.0

(empty now)


Leherbauer, Anton wrote:
+1
Here is a first notice about an intended API addition:
https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=251406
Toni

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    *From:* cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
    [mailto:cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] *On Behalf Of *Schaefer, Doug
    *Sent:* Monday, October 20, 2008 3:48 PM
    *To:* CDT General developers list.
    *Subject:* RE: [cdt-dev] CDT 6.0 and API

    +1.
Time to put the cowboy hats away. :) Doug.

        ------------------------------------------------------------------------
        *From:* cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
        [mailto:cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] *On Behalf Of *Schorn, Markus
        *Sent:* Monday, October 20, 2008 8:33 AM
        *To:* CDT General developers list.
        *Subject:* RE: [cdt-dev] CDT 6.0 and API

        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


Back to the top