search for: immobility

...i.e. source compatibility) b) versioning? (Should we add support for versioning in anyhow? Maybe a C API version 2 to start this off with?) c) One of the big things appears to be the push and pull for "A C API for all C++ entry points" along with "We don't want to get locked into immobility because we have a C API for all C++ entry points". Perhaps part of this might be defining an actual stable set of things along with an unstable set of things? What was the rest of your discussion on this? Any particular points you think the community would be interested in? Just some random...

On 07/17/2015 02:05 PM, Rafael Espíndola wrote: >> c) One of the big things appears to be the push and pull for "A C API for >> all C++ entry points" along with "We don't want to get locked into >> immobility because we have a C API for all C++ entry points". Perhaps part >> of this might be defining an actual stable set of things along with an >> unstable set of things? > This is a good idea. We should clearly document a subset that is stable. > > Being stable should also have...

Hi @ll, a few of us had recently a discussion about how to manage the C API and possible policies regarding addition, maintenance, deprecation, and removal of API. Even thought there is a strong agreement in the community that we shouldn't break released C API and should be backwards compatible, there doesn’t seem to be a developer policy that backs that up. This is something we should fix.