On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 08:00:30AM -0400, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
> The last thing we need is a new "class" of public APIs with special promises.
I agree, it would add too much extra complexity.
Our API rules are already quite complex.
On 04/10/2013 09:50 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
>> That's unprecedented, we've never released an API "without compatibility
>> promises". We could do that but that's a separate discussion IMO.
>
> That might be a good idea. How about we introduce a class of public
> APIs, disabled by default (i.e.,
Ivan Zhakov wrote on Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 13:24:32 +0400:
> On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 5:50 AM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> > Daniel Shahaf wrote on Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 02:28:30 +0300:
> >> Ivan Zhakov wrote on Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 23:33:01 +0400:
> >> > On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 10:02 PM, Daniel Shahaf
On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 5:50 AM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> Daniel Shahaf wrote on Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 02:28:30 +0300:
>> Ivan Zhakov wrote on Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 23:33:01 +0400:
>> > On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 10:02 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
>> > > Ivan Zhakov wrote on Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 21:48:39 +0
4 matches
Mail list logo
