On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 04:46:24PM +0100, Alan Griffiths wrote:
> The current approach to naming stanzas in the symbol maps leads to a
> potential for mistakes. For example, src/platform/symbols.map has the
> following stanzas:
>
> MIRPLATFORM_9 {
> ...
> }
>
> MIRPLATFORM_9.1 {
> ...
> } MIRPLATFORM_9;
>
> It is far from obvious when adding a symbol whether it should be added
> to MIRPLATFORM_9.1 or to a new MIRPLATFORM_9.2. As it happens
> MIRPLATFORM_9.1 was created after 0.15 was branched so that is the
> "right one". But it isn't obvious: If MIRPLATFORM_9.1 had shipped in
> 0.15 then MIRPLATFORM_9.2 would be right.
>
> I don't know of any reason why we name stanzas this way except "tradition".
>
> What does the team think of using this instead?
>
> MIRPLATFORM_9_new_symbols_from_0.16 {
> ...
> } MIRPLATFORM_9;
>
> And after we branch release 0.16 it is clearer we should add:
>
> MIRPLATFORM_9_new_symbols_from_0.17 {
> ...
> } MIRPLATFORM_9_new_symbols_from_0.16;
>
> When the ABI breaks we consolidate as before.
+1 to including the release version in the stanza name.
As for the naming scheme I would propose the following variation:
MIRPLATFORM_9_symbols_from_0.15
MIRPLATFORM_9_symbols_from_0.16
...
and when we bump ABI and consolidate, let's say in 0.17:
MIRPLATFORM_10_symbols_from_0.17
Thanks,
Alexandros
--
Mir-devel mailing list
Mir-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/mir-devel
