[erlang-questions] SCTP incompatible change vote

[Hynek Vychodil]

+1 Good point.

On Jan 25, 2008 2:55 PM, Serge Aleynikov <saleyn@REDACTED> wrote:
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> erlang-questions mailing list
> erlang-questions@REDACTED
> http://www.erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions
>



-- 
--Hynek (Pichi) Vychodil