Re: Plan for 2.0

[Ludovic Courtès]

>> We could ship a C compatibility header as Andy suggested, but I'm not
>> sure it's 100% needed.
>
> Is your view on this a strong one?  I feel fairly sure that we ought
> to continue to distribute this code - but in a deprecated and
> undocumented separate library - because I think by doing so we can
> help users with negligible ongoing maintenance cost.

But if it's not documented, how are people going to know that they
should link against `libgh'?  :-)

This solution would be OK for me, but I find this "in-between" libgh
trick more complex than either removing the gh code or leaving it
entirely.

Thanks,
Ludo'.