<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Josselin Mouette wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:1222810334.32659.18.camel@shizuru" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Le mardi 30 septembre 2008 à 15:46 -0500, Dave Peterson a écrit :
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Josselin Mouette wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">No, please stop here. That’s not OK. If a new version of HardJSON breaks
your application, it is friggin’ broken. If that new version is not
compatible, it should be called HardJSON2, and nothing will break.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">I disagree with your assertion that the name HAS to imply API
compatibility. There ought to be something that specifies API / ABI
compatibility, such as the combination of name and some portion of a
version number, but too many people depend on a name for marketing or
other purposes for us to impose that it indicate technical aspects.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
The marketing name does not have to be the same of the name of the
module you import. The situation where they differ is even quite common.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
But we already have a separation between project name and module names
that are contained within that project. We don't currently declare
dependencies on the module names but on the project name. i.e. a
dependency on HardJSON > 2.0 does not say anything about what
modules you're expecting to import or use, only that you expect to use
version 2 of a project called HardJSON. Were you suggesting that
change?<br>
<br>
I think the rest of the comments are easily resolved after the above is
clear.<br>
<br>
<br>
-- Dave<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>