| Re: Re: [eigen] Remove Eigen2 support for 3.2? |
[ Thread Index |
Date Index
| More lists.tuxfamily.org/eigen Archives
]
- To: eigen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: Re: [eigen] Remove Eigen2 support for 3.2?
- From: Gael Guennebaud <gael.guennebaud@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 21:43:05 +0200
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=n2i91rcEHZA7xT2q0mLs0oGkNKJo2VA+g5IRvgXJXQA=; b=LWwfgqdWb34RX6g0IV/7FNG0CQbr0g7ErzAIQ2T+vxuzZjowfxHmDungE9Q80+HBz4 8W8s9yFlQWO51zJ8v4Zsrk0kPCoYZhkl1KLPhDbxJ/vzsmgWiODTSRl+Ttt/yUcrcbv3 +SSPcM6sIwBpld1FmZwwD0a51tW7/JNLn5wVddX1qp7YHyBqFJZ+WAuUMylKhjjyoGEJ 78i3l5WXMwqBc7CVLnMOnBTqM0+pW+gIdpYi8YL3NnlaieU+EtspxY4UYqRqv0Dc97w3 jJVmf4SqW5wIpL1sWn1wWMYeoegvdAbO/6Y11l9uy3+dPePBsSqwTupmMj0t9sh5O377 Wozg==
Alright, then we'll try to keep it around, however the evaluator
changes might require us to keep only the stage 40. We'll see.
Gael
On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 4:24 PM, Marcus D. Hanwell
<marcus.hanwell@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 10:04 AM, Laurent Rineau
> (CGAL/GeometryFactory) <laurent.rineau@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Le jeudi 28 juin 2012 09:33:34 Benoit Jacob a écrit :
>>> Is this a heavy maintainance burden or just a wish to simplify the codebase?
>>>
>>> In the former case, go ahead and do whatever you need to keep Eigen
>>> easy to maintain; in the latter case, I would suggest giving it a bit
>>> more time and having a transition period where it would be officially
>>> deprecated and complain loudly about it (generate warnings, or even
>>> require people to #define
>>> YES_I_KNOW_EIGEN2_SUPPORT_IS_GOING_AWAY_SOON), and only fully remove
>>> it in the version after (3.3?)
>>>
>>> This is just my 2 cents as an industry guy now ;-) People just don't
>>> want their existing code to be broken, and value that much higher than
>>> "cleanliness" and "removing cruft".
>>
>> I second Benoit's opinion. My company does not use Eigen2, but it is true that
>> the industry does not like breaking changes for no real reasons.
>>
> I third Benoit's opinion, but would understand if it needed to be
> removed. Having some mixed projects, and the ABI incompatible changes
> in the Vector3d etc typedefs would perhaps make it harder for us, but
> we could also require 3.0-3.1 if necessary. We are working on moving
> everything over, but these things take time.
>
> Marcus
>
>