Mark M. Hoffman wrote: > Hi Hans, Jean: > <quoted stuff snipped> > > First, I should be clear: I was planning to modify the libsensors ABI for > libsensors 3.0. That's the reason behind incrementing the major rev number > from 2 to 3. > > However, I was not planning to do a complete redesign. I just don't have the > time for that. Here is an example of the type of change I'm planning to make: > > -extern int sensors_match_chip(sensors_chip_name chip1, > - sensors_chip_name chip2); > +extern int sensors_match_chip(const sensors_chip_name *chip1, > + const sensors_chip_name *chip2); > > That breaks the ABI, but it's not a redesign. Nor does it make it very > difficult for libsensors users to update. The most significant change would be > to add 'include' functionality to the config scanner. > Why? I understand this may be an improvement speed-wise, but libsensors is afaik not really speed critical. To me (as a packager of a distro maintaining over a 100 packages) this is needless ABI breakage and as a packager I strongly dislike that. Breaking ABI is not something that should be done lightly and thus is in this case not warrented IMHO. > However, I do appreciate that a true redesign may be warranted. If you want to > tackle this, please don't let me hold you back. The sensors project has always > been very liberal about SVN access and contributors, because we haven't had the > luxury of having many contributors with lots of time. > As said the API is not all it could be, but it works, accept for adding something to get the type of a feature I think it will do for now. > If people with more time and/or energy come along, I don't want to stand in the > way just because I've been around longer. I can also tell you that Jean feels > the same way (we're both on #linux-sensors as I write this.) > > So how about this: you get SVN access, and get these patches committed to a > feature branch (as I did some time ago for the scanner). If everything's ready > before 2.10.4, *you* can merge them back to the main line. If it turns out you > decide to go in a different direction (destabilize the API/ABI or whatever) > then you're already on a branch so it's no big deal. > Sounds like a good plan to me. My preferred user name is jwrdegoede. Do you want a public ssh-key? I can pgp sign the mail with the key with a long registered pgp-key if you want. > Meanwhile, I'll work on the remainder of the 3.0 material on the branch I > already have open, as I have time. If it turns out that you want to do a > complete API/ABI redesign, I can always abandon that part of the 3.0 branch. > As said I've no plans to redo the ABI, my point is more that as long as we don't redesign it I see no reason for a 3.0 . Regards, Hans
