> On Dec 11, 2017, at 1:36 PM, Neil Horman <nhor...@tuxdriver.com> wrote: > > Hey all- > A few days ago, I was lamenting the fact that, when reviewing patches I > would frequently complain about ABI changes that were actually considered safe > because they were part of the EXPERIMENTAL api set. John M. asked me then > what > I might do to improve the situation, and the following patch set is a proposal > that I've come up with. > > In thinking about the problem I identified two issues that I think we > can improve on in this area:
One question is how does this effect the ABI map files or does it? If an API is exposed in the map file does it need any type of special indicator on that API line? It may not make much difference, but I was thinking it could be an indicator the API is experimental and may not exist. If the new experimental API is included in the map file then it could become a problem for systems expecting all of the APIs in the map file to be solid. Regards, Keith
