Re: Splitting the repos...
Ethan Blanton <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.gnome.gaim.devel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
David Woodhouse spake unto us the following wisdom: > I'd note that Evolution has a similar split, between Evolution the GUI > and Evolution-Data-Server the back end. It *theoretically* allows > separate and parallel development. In practice it's a complete fiction. > Evolution and EDS versions are released in lockstep and a given > Evolution version will have a dependency on the *precisely* matching > version of EDS, because no attempt is really made at maintaining a > stable API/ABI and keeping track of when the dependencies needs to > change. > > There's a lot more to a *meaningful* split than just separating > different directories out into different repositories, and it hasn't > been clear from the rest of the discussion that this is *really* going > to happen. Which makes me suspect that the split isn't going to be > stunningly productive. Agreed. However, I think we can and would actually allow this split; we have developed a fairly consistent practice of following useful versioning and compatibility practices, and I see no reason for that to end just because we restructure things. I suspect major releases would indeed continue to be in lockstep. > If we really *are* talking about separating out libpurple and other > bits and letting them develop at their own pace though, then that seems > reasonable. Just don't underestimate the work involved. And let's have > a proper discussion about library and symbol versioning, etc. We already do this. We follow the usual versioning rules that a minor release may contain new functionality but may not change or break existing functionality, etc. > I'd *strongly* suggest that we finally come into the 21st century and > allow C99 structure initialisers in the protocol plugins though, if > they're going to be developed out-of-step with libpurple. That whole > "count the NULLs" crap from the 1990s is a constant pain and it > *already* leads to problems, which are only going to get worse. We already allow this. I believe it is used in quite a few places in our sources. We have not pushed them everywhere, though, and most of the in-tree prpls predate good C99 support. We allow (and even encourage) much of C99. We do not allow declaring variables in the middle of a block of code, // comments, and a few other things. There may be some things that are problematic for Windows users, as Microsoft hasn't yet discovered 1999. I don't personally care about this, but it may cause some users angst. Ethan _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list [email protected] https://pidgin.im/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devel