avr-libc-dev
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[avr-libc-dev] Re: Adding (some) Procyon AVRlib functionality to avr-lib


From: David Brown
Subject: [avr-libc-dev] Re: Adding (some) Procyon AVRlib functionality to avr-libc
Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2009 21:35:37 +0200
User-agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (Windows/20090605)

Joerg Wunsch wrote:
As David Brown wrote:

One thing I'd like to suggest is that the "library" be divided into
separate areas.  In particular, I'd like to see a "stable" area and
a "staging" or "experimental" area.

I don't mind that, just one remark: unless you got lots of people who
are eager to test it, there's some risk with that approach that most
users will never test the "experimental" part until it is finally
tagged "stable".


That's certainly a risk - there are limitless projects stuck in "alpha test" phase or called "test" for this reason. Perhaps there should be a rough time limit - anything that remains in "experimental" with a stable API for more than 6 months goes to a vote. Either people are happy with it and it becomes "stable", or no one is interested in it and it gets chucked out.

What I want to avoid here is that someone contributes code for a great SPI driver, people start using it, and then someone else points out that some AVRs have more than one SPI bus and the entire API needs to be changed to take that into account. You end up with a choice of annoying people by changing the API regularly, or annoying people by using an API that doesn't cover the requirements just to avoid changes. Basically, I want to make it perfectly clear to users when they can expect an API to be stable and when it might change.





reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]