Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [cdt-dev] API Compatability




On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 10:18 AM, Doug Schaefer <dschaefer@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Cool. That's what I ended up doing. The assumption I guess is that we haven't broken it up until 8.2.0 (but we have…).

What error message do you get for core.parser.util.ArrayUtils? All changes there should be binary compatible. In few cases we consciously made changes that are formally not backward compatible, but should not hurt anybody, for example by removing public access from Messages classes that were made public by oversight.

Doug.

-sergey 

From: Marc-André Laperle <marc-andre.laperle@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-To: "CDT General developers list." <cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tuesday, 1 October, 2013 1:06 PM
To: "CDT General developers list." <cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [cdt-dev] API Compatability

Hi Doug,

Which version/branch are you building? If you're using master, your API baseline should be 8.2.0.

Marc-Andre

On 13-10-01 12:09 PM, Doug Schaefer wrote:
Hey gang,

I just rebuilt my dev environment since switching machines (still a Mac but one that isn't broken). I set up the API baseline against 8.0.0 and get a few compatibility problems, for example lots of changes in RefreshScopeManager, some new @ restrictions on a few interfaces in the AST and model, and template changes in core.parser.util.ArrayUtils.

Since no one seemed to complain about these, no one seemed to be affected.

So my question is, what version are people using for API baseline? Should we create problem filters for the errors from 8.0.0?

BTW, I have a feeling we talked about this a long time ago, but can't recollect the answer.

Thanks,
Doug.


_______________________________________________
cdt-dev mailing list
cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxhttps://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev


_______________________________________________
cdt-dev mailing list
cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev



Back to the top