[LLVMdev] LLVMContext: Suggestions for API Changes

[John Criswell]

Owen Anderson wrote:
>
> On Jul 15, 2009, at 9:53 AM, John Criswell wrote:
>
>> Owen Anderson wrote:
>>> On Jul 15, 2009, at 7:44 AM, John Criswell wrote:
>>>
>>>> 1) If technically possible, add the new API first, get it working,  
>>>> email
>>>> llvmdev describing the old and new APIs, provide some lead time for
>>>> people to change over, and then remove the old APIs.  This makes it
>>>> easier to plan when I fix problems due to LLVM API changes and when I
>>>> can work on our own bugs. :)
>>>>
>>>
>>> The high-level change was already described and discussed on LLVMdev.
>>>
>> First, did you discuss it or announce it?  There's a difference.
>>
>> With its high traffic volume, I don't read all llvmdev mails anymore.  I
>> pick and choose based on their subject lines.  A subject entitled "API
>> Change: LLVMContext" will probably get my attention while
>> "Multi-threading support for LLVM" will not.
>
> How about a subject line "[LLVMdev] MAJOR API CHANGE:  LLVMContext"?
Yes, that particular message fits the first criterion: it announces the
change in the subject line.  I thought you might have been referring to
other emails about LLVMContext that I didn't see, but you weren't; you
were referring to the above message.

However, IMHO, the message from June doesn't clearly state what is to
change.  It tells me static methods will be removed, but it doesn't tell
me where they are re-implemented.  It assumes I can infer that by
understanding how LLVM uniques values.

-- John T.

>
> --Owen