tech-userlevel archive

[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 are
 concerns about breaking backwards compatibility (apparently, there are
3rd party users of this library already). In theory, it is not too late, as netbsd-6 will be the first release shipping rbtree(3), but we need to
 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 changes.

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?!?


Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index