On Mon, Sep 30, 2002 at 11:03:55AM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote:
Are you planning to revert mi1 then?
Que?
"mi2" changes have been sneaking in. Are you planning to revert
them -
create an "mi1" which matches what mi1 actually was.
It's a bit late for that. Someone should audit the changes made so
far
and identify which caused syntax changes and update accordingly.
Fixes
could, perhaphs be pushed into 5.3 (but I don't have the time).
Otherwise, where is the line drawn to mark the interface version as
final? It seems to me that the default shouldn't be evolving, that
-i=mi should default to a fixed point until the next version is
running.
I think a line is drawn when each release is made. I'd expect an MI
client to explicitly specify -i=miN (where N was formally released)
rather than trust -i=mi.
However, should the HEAD hold off on recognizing -i=mi2 until the next
branch is cut? On the HEAD, -i=mi evolves by definition. However,
-i=mi2 is evolving as well :-(
That'd be best I think. I think that -i=mi2 specifies a fixed standard
and we don't have one yet; so how about -i=mi being different from
-i=mi1, but not adding -i=mi2 until we're ready to fix the interface?
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-