Re: [patch rfa:doco rfc:NEWS] mi1 -> mi2; rm mi0

Daniel Jacobowitz
2002-09-30T15:16:44Z

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