unversioned public libraries in Samba (was: Re: ntdb in Samba?)
obnox at samba.org
Mon Mar 16 02:07:17 MDT 2015
On 2015-03-16 at 07:57 +0100, Volker Lendecke wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 01:13:23PM +1300, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> > On Sat, 2015-03-14 at 15:07 +0100, Volker Lendecke wrote:
> > > On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 01:14:31PM +0100, Michael Adam wrote:
> > > > On 2015-03-13 at 20:51 +0100, Volker Lendecke wrote:
> > > > > On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 06:01:42PM +0100, Michael Adam wrote:
> > > > > > Excellent idea.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I also find it regrettable that the proposed git tree has been
> > > > > > withdrawn so fast..
> > > > >
> > > > > My point is that we need a better communication strategy about which
> > > > > pieces of Samba we want to take the liberty to change without notice
> > > > > and which pieces we stick to.
> > > >
> > > > That is easy (and has been stated several times):
> > > > All components that are not explicitly flagged as
> > > > published APIs/libraries can be changed by us at will.
> > > > External consumers will have to adapt.
> > >
> > > So every SAMBA_LIBRARY without private_library=True and with
> > > a vnum= is a published API?
> > Yes, that is exactly the rule.
> This will make it practically impossible to refactor
> internals, but thanks for this information.
The question here is what it means to have a published, or
as I would even prefer to put it, a versioned API.
My idea from my last mail still stands, that I think that we of
course can still change and refactor these systems at will, but
but that we should keep updating the vnum as an indication of
need for adaption of consumers.
IMHO, that's the only promise attached to that.
Everything else is pure niceness.
My 2 cents...
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the samba-technical