On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 02:06:00 +0900, Masao Mutoh <mutoh@...> wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 17:46:19 +0100
> Laurent Sansonetti <laurent.sansonetti@...> wrote:
> > Hi,
> > On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 01:25:11 +0900, Masao Mutoh <mutoh@...> wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 17:11:16 +0100
> > > Fortin Denis <denis.fortin@...> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Le vendredi 25 f__vrier 2005 __ 16:11 +0100, Laurent Sansonetti a __crit :
> > > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > > > The patch looks OK. Unfortunately I do not run libgda CVS, so I could
> > > > > not test it (I run 1.1.99 distributed by ubuntu hoary). I do not
> > > > > think it is a good idea to merge it for the moment, because of
> > > > > backward compatibility problems Masao mentionned earlier.
> > > > >
> > > > > If you can improve your patch to check at the installation time the
> > > > > current version of libgda and therefore enable your changes if 1.3 is
> > > > > detected, then I could directly merge it. As Masao said, you can
> > > > > detect that in extconf.rb.
> > > > I won't do this because it requires too much work and libgda can still change.
> > > > However the most significant change between 1.2 and 1.3 is the renaming
> > > > of field_attributes into datamodel_column_attributes so
> > > > imho you're going into a lot of trouble if you want to support both at
> > > > the same time(api/doc problems).
> > >
> > > Hmm. If Laurent will agree, it may be better to give up backward
> > > compatibility.
> > >
> > I don't think it is a good idea to drop backward compatibility now.
> > 1.2 isn't released as stable yet, and almost all users are using the
> > stable version.
> > I agree that libgda can change. That's why supporting unstable or CVS
> > version now is not a good idea. We have to wait until it matures a
> > bit, to be moved in the stable version.
> > But, on the other side, the development of libgda is very slow. If we
> > do not support the unstable branch, we will miss a lot of interesting
> > features.
> > I think your patch could be modified to be compiled only if 1.3 is
> > detected. The changes are not so important. We do not need to
> > document this new API, but we can simply state that we partially
> > support 1.3.
> > Masao, what do you think?
> I agree with you.
> Supporting the stable version is more important than
> supporting unstable version.
> OK. Then, we don't support libgda-1.3 in 0.12.0, do we?
> Or, if someone work for that, I can postpone to release 0.12.0
> until next weekend.
I can start working on that next week. In fact I would prefer that
you postpone the release, because there are still some things to
finish in Ruby/GStreamer (API doc to refresh for instance). I will
not be able to work on it this week-end, because of the FOSDEM, that I
Anyway, have a nice week-end!