On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 2:12 PM, Marc-André Lureau <marcandre.lureau@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 2:09 PM, Alon Levy <alevy@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> On 11/18/2013 02:48 PM, Christophe Fergeau wrote: >>> On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 02:32:45PM +0200, Alon Levy wrote: >>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 >>>> >>>> On 11/18/2013 02:21 PM, Christophe Fergeau wrote: >>>>> On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 11:28:28AM +0100, Marc-André Lureau >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> From: Marc-André Lureau <marcandre.lureau@xxxxxxxxxx> >>>>>> >>>>>> --- configure.ac | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 >>>>>> deletions(-) >>>>>> >>>>>> diff --git a/configure.ac b/configure.ac index >>>>>> 22e3889..7aa734e 100644 --- a/configure.ac +++ b/configure.ac >>>>>> @@ -13,9 +13,9 @@ AC_PREREQ([2.57]) # 4. Follow the libtool >>>>>> manual for the so version: # >>>>>> http://www.gnu.org/software/libtool/manual/html_node/Updating-version-info.html >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >> - -m4_define([SPICE_CURRENT], [9]) +m4_define([SPICE_CURRENT], >>>>>> [10]) m4_define([SPICE_REVISION], [0]) >>>>>> -m4_define([SPICE_AGE], [8]) +m4_define([SPICE_AGE], [0]) >>>>> >>>>> I'd rather we avoid breaking ABI 'just' for the NBD channel. >>>> >>>> What do you think is the correct criteria? >>> >>> My criteria would be to never break it, so not really useful. I'd >>> tend to return the question, if we break the ABI now (which hasn't >>> been done in recent times), where do we stop? Some stuff in the >>> Opus patches could also be made easier by breaking ABI, should we >>> break ABI a second time there? >> >> I don't know. We can always keep both, in this case add a second >> add_watch function (add_watch_ext..) and possibly deprecate the former >> later. This is of course ugly, but doesn't break the ABI. > > It's changing the size of SpiceCoreInterface, that would break it too. > We would probably need a different struct interface. > > Another problem is SpiceBaseInterface, where I added a user_data > pointer. This could be hidden in a private struct and accessors. I meant BaseInstance. >>> >>> Christophe >>> >> >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >> Version: GnuPG v1.4.15 (GNU/Linux) >> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ >> >> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJSihGFAAoJEGSFt2Lm6PXu0msH/1Pf8t6xhw+UPa1lQNqMfGVI >> gkHAcbfTbe82M4677CwzZmgYkR0qa0jwfgDroyhrUEL/znywiF0M1BR7IPX64QLO >> Hoxi8f7oSJPL31tOmtVoa9VZ7lsilJLhvXque83eBElCZL3G+6risSJeXLWLMY1r >> 6wgpTCPpWgNmP3qgxD6MoFRHBW6dQamF7HPOyT+IM0Ioelr9n36M2koVzlGVCv65 >> bxp7PYJHMQ4R0cMGHltnbiiRLpMBXFWbXO7Hn1t5o+KgXxs6XRd/Z6Qy7Ilb+ttr >> KxmoOLmTNVlkQ3lk9lQoXKU3/4t1SSiRgh3iangeL5gd7/MxZO2WPjl3nw++ugM= >> =Ejex >> -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > > > -- > Marc-André Lureau -- Marc-André Lureau _______________________________________________ Spice-devel mailing list Spice-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/spice-devel