<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 07/17/2015 03:41 PM, Eric
Christopher wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CALehDX7iJPL1QY0cqN-Unr4rR_4RjO7Tnkmr2DvDdAv+5Pez=A@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">Hi Juergen,
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I've actually got another, perhaps more radical, plan.
Let's just get rid of the C API or move it to another project.
This simplifies a lot of the plans here where people have too
many different ideas of how the C API should work.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>At this point the people who want a stable C API per
incremental version can do that and handle the overhead of
porting themselves and the people that want a C API that just
happens to be a C interface can have a wrapper (or SWIG or
whatever they want).</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I realize it's radical, but it seems that there are so many
different wants for C API here that solving everyone's
problems or wants is going to be impossible.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
I really haven't seen that much of a split here honestly. Everyone
agrees we need a stable C API for core functionality. The only
disagreement seems to be about when something gets promoted to
"core" status and even that's been minimal. <br>
<br>
(I have no opinion w.r.t. your actual proposal.)<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CALehDX7iJPL1QY0cqN-Unr4rR_4RjO7Tnkmr2DvDdAv+5Pez=A@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>-eric<br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr">On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 12:39 PM Juergen
Ributzka <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:juergen@apple.com">juergen@apple.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Hi @ll,<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
I was wondering what the interested parties think of the
current approach and what could/should we improve to make
the use and maintenance of the C API easier for users and
the developers alike.<br>
<br>
I was hoping we could also introduce a process that allows
the removal of an API after it has been deprecated for a
whole release and the release notes stated that it will be
removed.<br>
<br>
Thoughts? Comments?<br>
<br>
Cheers,<br>
Juergen<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
LLVM Developers mailing list<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:LLVMdev@cs.uiuc.edu" target="_blank">LLVMdev@cs.uiuc.edu</a>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu" rel="noreferrer"
target="_blank">http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:LLVMdev@cs.uiuc.edu">LLVMdev@cs.uiuc.edu</a> <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu">http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev">http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>