Subject: Re: [boost] Breaking existing libraries
From: vicente.botet (vicente.botet_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-11-22 12:02:33
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Abrahams" <dave_at_[hidden]>
To: <boost_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Friday, November 21, 2008 12:47 PM
Subject: Re: [boost] Breaking existing libraries
>
> on Fri Nov 21 2008, Markus Werle <numerical.simulation-AT-web.de> wrote:
>
>> [Sidenote: I'd prefer boost::spirit to stay as it is and spirit2c be renamed to
>> boost::ultimate_parser, since it is a *completely* *different* library.]
>> The boost community has not found the perfect way to deal with breaking
>> changes yet, since this is an issue that cannot be easily solved.
>
> It's something that we could easily do better.
Please could you be more precise?
>> The key issue is: You did not pay for what you use.
>
> I'm sorry to contradict, but I don't think that's the key issue. IMO,
> the key issue is giving care to disoverability and the ability to make a
> transition:
>
> * Avoiding completely silent breakage
>
> * Using a deprecation period to give users notice that a breaking
> change is coming
>
> * Documenting a transition procedure
>
> * ....etc.
I'm completly in face with this but what do you mean by transition procedure? Do you mean to document how the deprecated features are removed?
Thanks,
Vicente