> > you need major bump as pw_policy_test is incompatible.
> > i think it's better to keep it compatible and use a differnt name for new one.
> 
> the API was unused exactly for the purpose of changing it (look at the
> original pw_policy commit message from few months ago).

how did you know that no one uses the api?
once you exported the api, it can be used by someone.

> but i don't like the idea of keeping the same
> pw_policy_test as it was.

why?

YAMAMOTO Takashi