[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: rb_tree_iterate(3) documentation vs. implementation
On 8/28/12 11:12 AM, Paul Goyette wrote:
On Tue, 28 Aug 2012, Mindaugas Rasiukevicius wrote:
- There is also PR/45893. The reason why these changes were not made
concerns about breaking backwards compatibility (apparently, there are
3rd party users of this library already). In theory, it is not too
as netbsd-6 will be the first release shipping rbtree(3), but we
reach the consensus on this.
Seems to me, we ought to get this "right" before we formally ship.
The "early adopters" who are already using rbtree(3) already should be
few in number and hopefully we could work with them to adapt to the
Why is it that people still think that at this late date, we would
entertain changing an API in NetBSD-6 when a release candidate is built
and about to be announced?!?
Main Index |
Thread Index |