Daniel Stone daniel at
Thu Apr 9 03:29:47 PDT 2009

On Thu, Apr 09, 2009 at 06:14:21AM -0400, Thomas Dickey wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Apr 2009, Bill Crawford wrote:
>> It makes perfect sense. He's saying that (f(A) ⊢ g(B)) ⊬ (¬f(A) ⊢ ¬g(B)), where
>> A is "release", f is "latest", B is "API" and g is "stable" ;o)
>> The point is not that it has to be the "latest" release to be "stable", the
>> point is that it needs to be an actual release, because between those, they
>> might experiment with things and change them before release, and you don't want
>> to depend on any temporary change that might be withdrawn rapidly. Over the
>> longer term, sure, things get deprecated, but it's to be hoped that over quite
>> a long period of time.
>> At least, I *think* that's what he said.
> He might have.  His response doesn't contain any useful information.
> In the context of the remark that I was curious about, I'd have
> understood "API-stable" to mean that no further changes will be made in  
> the API which would require recompilation.  Regarding the latest-releases 
> tie-in on the web-page, that's problematic since it's only the portion of 
> the API which has been unchanging for an extended period of time that  
> would be (in the normal sense of the word) "stable".
> I suppose that someone with time to spare could compare the successive  
> releases of cairo and measure the fraction of the API which is actually
> stable.  (If there's some evidence of this in the source code itself,
> we might want to discuss that).

If you do, be sure to discuss it on Cairo mailing lists, if anywhere at
all; certainly not xorg@ in any case.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <>

More information about the xorg mailing list