[Python-Dev] Usability of the limited API

Nick Coghlan ncoghlan at gmail.com
Fri May 29 00:13:56 CEST 2015

On 29 May 2015 01:04, "Steve Dower" <Steve.Dower at microsoft.com> wrote:
> Paul Moore wrote:
> > On 28 May 2015 at 15:28, Steve Dower <Steve.Dower at microsoft.com> wrote:
> >> I don't have the issue number handy, but it should be near the top of
> >> the recently modified list.
> >
> > I recall seeing that issue. I'm fine with that - getting the two in
sync is
> > obviously worth doing (and clearly in hand). I'm personally not sure
> > automating the exposure of symbols is the correct approach, as I'm not
> > people typically even consider the stable API when adding functions. Is
> > default (what you get if somebody just blindly adds a symbol with no
thought for
> > the stable API) to expose it or not? If the default is that it's not
> > then automation seems reasonable, otherwise I'm not so sure.
> Now I'm at my desk, the issue is http://bugs.python.org/issue23903
> I believe new symbols are considered stable by default, so perhaps we
actually want a test that will generate a C file that imports everything
"stable" and will break the buildbots if someone adds something new without
explicitly adding it to the list of stable functions?

The stable CPython ABI is actually tracked on

Ideally we'd be running those checks automatically as part of our own QA
with http://ispras.linuxbase.org/index.php/ABI_compliance_checker, similar
to Antoine's regular refleak checks.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20150529/a2ad1ade/attachment.html>

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list