[erlang-questions] SCTP incompatible change vote

[Serge Aleynikov]

Kenneth Lundin wrote:
> Alternative 1 naturligtvis. Eftersom vi inte har några skarpa kunder ännu.

Excuse my English ;-) but I was thinking of another argument in favor of 
#1.  SCTP support has never been announced to be "production-ready".  It 
was included in R11B-5 in beta status, so you would be welcome to change 
API reasonably without worrying too much about backward compatibility 
until you remove the "beta" status.

Serge

> /mvh Kenneth
> 
> On 1/25/08, Raimo Niskanen <raimo+erlang-questions@REDACTED> wrote:
>> Regarding the 'adaption' -> 'adaptation' spelling change
>> in the lksctp API:
>>
>> I will change the inet driver's use of the lksctp API to
>> cope with both spellings, but what to do with the
>> gen_sctp API in Erlang? Either:
>> 1) I change all spellings of 'adaption' to 'adaptation'
>>   in the Erlang API while I am at it, that is in R12B-1,
>>   or in R12B-2 if I do not make the deadline. The sooner
>>   such a change is made the better before too many
>>   users are stuck with the old spelling.
>> or
>> 2) I keep the Erlang API until the next major release
>>   (R13B) because such large changes should not happen
>>   in a minor release.
>> or perhaps
>> 3) I never change the Erlang API, just to confuse
>>   SCTP users and to be backwards compatible.
>>
>> I really do not believe 3) is a serious alternative.
>> But what do you (the users) want, 1) or 2) ?
>> Or 4) (own suggestion) ?
>>
>> --
>>
>> / Raimo Niskanen, Erlang/OTP, Ericsson AB