[Gtk-sharp-list] API Freeze Policy Adjustment

[Todd Berman]

Murray Cumming wrote:
> On Thu, 2004-07-01 at 16:41 -0400, Miguel de Icaza wrote:
> 
>>Hello,
>>
>>
>>>>>The API rules and the whole release process are not meant to make life
>>>>>difficult for you, or to get in your way. But large API changes have no
>>>>>place in a stable release. The GNOME developers seem quite united in
>>>>>their approval of this policy.
>>>>
>>>>While I was the maintainer of libgnome, my policy was to keep backwards
>>>>compatibility, but new APIs could be introduced (since they would not
>>>>break old software).
>>>>
>>>>The Gtk+ maintainers have a different position.
>>>>
>>>>But I would not characterize "The GNOME developers" being "quite
>>>>united", we disagreed in the past, and we seem to disagree now.
>>>
>>>As far as I can tell, all current maintainers of GNOME Platform
>>>libraries are very clear about this. The release process is now very
>>>established and they don't just ignore the freezes.
>>
>>Except for yourself, according to your message indicating you've broken
>>the policy.
> 
> 
> I am on the release-team, so I kind of self-approve my freeze breaks.
> It's not good though. I was trying to demonstrate that minor breaks
> changes are allowed - the release process is not meant to make life
> difficult. There is an established freeze-break approval process, and
> current GNOME Platform maintainers are fully aware of it. 
> 
> 
>>Anyways, we have different dynamics in the Mono world, its just a nice
>>result of being able to move swiftly with the most fantastic development
>>platform on earth ;-)
> 
> 
> I don't think Mono changes concepts of API stability. You are not
> special.
> 
> I think if you want to be a development platform then you have to act
> like a development platform. It's incredibly arrogant of you to think
> that you don't need to fit in with the rest of the GNOME platform even
> one little bit.

So, its arrogant to have a release policy that closely mirrors yours?

Mike is saying that API that is bound and *WILL NOT WORK* can be fixed 
so that it will work. This wont break anything for anyone.

Do we need to get someone on the release team so we can ok our breaks 
like you do?

--Todd