Am 14.06.2014 03:42, schrieb Michael Scherer: > Le samedi 14 juin 2014 à 03:33 +0200, Reindl Harald a écrit : >>> So maybe you should propose to have dnf named yum 4.0, and then since >>> that's a major version, we would be ok to change the behavior, command >>> lines switch, configuration and backend in a backward incompatible >>> way? >> >> yes > > so, just to be clear, that's ok to change the behavior, command lines > switch, configuratio and backend in backward _incompatible_ for yum 4.0 > aka dnf, for you ? it is *NEVER* ok to break user interfaces without a damned good reason there is no single reason to break command line switches at all >>> Or even with the name yum and a clear indication, that's something that >>> shouldn't be changed, in which case, yum 3 behavior should be kept, >>> which mean "keeping all the code and behavior until later" ? >> >> jesus christ the code behind has *nothing* to do with the userinterface >> and options - i have rewritten code of software i maintain for a decade >> now multiple times and in the meantime there is for sure not a single >> line the same as started 2003 without break user expectations > > In the case of dnf, the plugin api did changed. And I doubt people want > to bring back the old one. So the user expectation around specific > plugin is already broken. no - only if you want it that way as developer you could also say "OK, that's the currently used feature set and as we build the whole thing modular we can even ship that modules in the default install" > Yet, do you advocate bringing back the old API that no one liked, and > more importantly, you volunteer to do that ? no i advocate if someone starts to replace things he intergates the plugins instead demand others to do so - if i break API's i adopt code which is using it
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
