On 07/13/2011 05:09 PM, Jay Foad wrote:> I regularly make small API-breaking changes in the name of cleaning > things up. Sorry! I'd be happy to update the release notes if folks > reckon this is the right thing to do. Would it just mean adding a<ul> > to the (currently empty) list in docs/ReleaseNotes.html#api_changes ?That's definitely needed. Not every LLVM user tracks development on trunk very closely and reads every commit message. A quick note about the nature of API-breaking changes and a hint on how to migrate existing sources would be really appreciated. Albert -- Dr. Albert Gr"af Dept. of Music-Informatics, University of Mainz, Germany Email: Dr.Graef at t-online.de, ag at muwiinfa.geschichte.uni-mainz.de WWW: http://www.musikinformatik.uni-mainz.de/ag
On 14 July 2011 02:26, Albert Graef <Dr.Graef at t-online.de> wrote:> That's definitely needed. Not every LLVM user tracks development on > trunk very closely and reads every commit message. A quick note about > the nature of API-breaking changes and a hint on how to migrate existing > sources would be really appreciated.I second that. Preferably all in the same place, in order, with (approx.) revision numbers where it happened. It'd make our jobs much easier to merge our local base with trunk. A simple text would suffice: <li><b>New Type System</b>: As of r123456, the type system is... Uses of ... have been replaced by ..., ... and ... have been deprecated, please use ... instead.</li> cheers, --renato
I've updated the release notes for all API changes I've made since 2.9 was branched: http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20110711/123990.html> Preferably all in the same place, in order, with (approx.) revision > numbers where it happened. It'd make our jobs much easier to merge our > local base with trunk.I haven't gone into quite that much detail, sorry. I think adding svn revision numbers will make the document unwieldy. Jay.