[Spice-devel] [PATCH 4/9] build-sys: bump current, as ABI is going to be broken next

[Marc-André Lureau]

On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 2:12 PM, Marc-André Lureau
<marcandre.lureau at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 2:09 PM, Alon Levy <alevy at redhat.com> wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> On 11/18/2013 02:48 PM, Christophe Fergeau wrote:
>>> On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 02:32:45PM +0200, Alon Levy wrote:
>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
>>>>
>>>> On 11/18/2013 02:21 PM, Christophe Fergeau wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 11:28:28AM +0100, Marc-André Lureau
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> From: Marc-André Lureau <marcandre.lureau at redhat.com>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --- configure.ac | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2
>>>>>> deletions(-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/configure.ac b/configure.ac index
>>>>>> 22e3889..7aa734e 100644 --- a/configure.ac +++ b/configure.ac
>>>>>> @@ -13,9 +13,9 @@ AC_PREREQ([2.57]) # 4. Follow the libtool
>>>>>> manual for the so version: #
>>>>>> http://www.gnu.org/software/libtool/manual/html_node/Updating-version-info.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>> - -m4_define([SPICE_CURRENT], [9]) +m4_define([SPICE_CURRENT],
>>>>>> [10]) m4_define([SPICE_REVISION], [0])
>>>>>> -m4_define([SPICE_AGE], [8]) +m4_define([SPICE_AGE], [0])
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd rather we avoid breaking ABI 'just' for the NBD channel.
>>>>
>>>> What do you think is the correct criteria?
>>>
>>> My criteria would be to never break it, so not really useful. I'd
>>> tend to return the question, if we break the ABI now (which hasn't
>>> been done in recent times), where do we stop? Some stuff in the
>>> Opus patches could also be made easier by breaking ABI, should we
>>> break ABI a second time there?
>>
>> I don't know. We can always keep both, in this case add a second
>> add_watch function (add_watch_ext..) and possibly deprecate the former
>> later. This is of course ugly, but doesn't break the ABI.
>
> It's changing the size of SpiceCoreInterface, that would break it too.
> We would probably need a different struct interface.
>
> Another problem is SpiceBaseInterface, where I added a user_data
> pointer. This could be hidden in a private struct and accessors.

I meant BaseInstance.

>>>
>>> Christophe
>>>
>>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>> Version: GnuPG v1.4.15 (GNU/Linux)
>> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
>>
>> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJSihGFAAoJEGSFt2Lm6PXu0msH/1Pf8t6xhw+UPa1lQNqMfGVI
>> gkHAcbfTbe82M4677CwzZmgYkR0qa0jwfgDroyhrUEL/znywiF0M1BR7IPX64QLO
>> Hoxi8f7oSJPL31tOmtVoa9VZ7lsilJLhvXque83eBElCZL3G+6risSJeXLWLMY1r
>> 6wgpTCPpWgNmP3qgxD6MoFRHBW6dQamF7HPOyT+IM0Ioelr9n36M2koVzlGVCv65
>> bxp7PYJHMQ4R0cMGHltnbiiRLpMBXFWbXO7Hn1t5o+KgXxs6XRd/Z6Qy7Ilb+ttr
>> KxmoOLmTNVlkQ3lk9lQoXKU3/4t1SSiRgh3iangeL5gd7/MxZO2WPjl3nw++ugM=
>> =Ejex
>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
>
> --
> Marc-André Lureau



-- 
Marc-André Lureau