| Re: [AD] Re: binary compatibility check |
[ Thread Index |
Date Index
| More lists.liballeg.org/allegro-developers Archives
]
- To: alleg-developers@xxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [AD] Re: binary compatibility check
- From: Chris <chris.kcat@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 17:06:09 -0800
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:from:to:subject:date:user-agent:references:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:message-id; b=QhIwFNnLFPKMH5rfxTXZV0NQuJvPGzYOjkYmuPLs4C/WIJxcmNSUbs+lnSjDt4BbC/QY4aGAxqCp7JryWOO59Oerd/IB7ZodFK2SG0njo+JtnUqaU0O9gJY9m1UzRdNwLaxubGxqhjz7KCQASCu0VzuAATk1cWfgsHLF0o8wvng=
On Friday 24 February 2006 08:00, Peter Wang wrote:
> Your proposal is the right way to do things (especially for commercial
> libraries for which version numbers get bumped for non-technical
> reasons), but we know for sure that 4.2 binaries won't work with
> 4.3/4.4, so if we adopt it we would only do it from 4.3 onwards.
> And we would still not break backwards compatibility within a stable
> branch.
Right, which is what I said. This should be done with 4.3/4.4, or whenever the
new API is complete enough that all the necessary structs are hidden, the old
functions are in a compatibility lib, and the new functions are finalized
(even if incompletely implemented).