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

[Andrew Cagney <ac131313@redhat.com>]

>> >
>> >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 :-(

Andrew