Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [cdt-dev] [DSF] SessionType

On Thursday 08 July 2010 20:50:42 Marc Khouzam wrote:

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx 
> > [mailto:cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John Cortell
> > Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2010 12:42 PM
> > To: CDT General developers list.; CDT General developers list.
> > Subject: Re: [cdt-dev] [DSF] SessionType
> > 
> > One thing I've observed is that there seems to be a hesitancy to bump 
> > the major version of DSF and DSF-GDB. With a noticeable increase in 
> > adopters, I suspect a lot of holes and bad assumptions are going to 
> > surface. Attempting to tackle these issues without breaking backward 
> > compatibility is going to yield some pretty ugly results, IMO. I 
> > think we should be willing to accept a major version change in Indigo 
> > and start opening the table to well architected solutions to these 
> > problems rather than convoluted ones which maintain backwards 
> > compatibilities but hurt DSF in the long run.
> That is a good point.
> But let's not up the version for a specific solution for one
> particular case.  But if we have a "well architected solution"
> that will help many integrators, it does seem like it is worth
> the change in version.

How can integrators determine that a "well architectured solution"
is indeed such, and solves their problem? It's only possible if it's
used in a real product, which suggests you need some branch where
it is kept until maturity.


Vladimir Prus
(650) 331-3385 x722

Back to the top