1 |
On Thu, 07 Jun 2012 10:42:29 -0700 |
2 |
Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
> >> It seems like you're trying to make glib fit your SLOT operator |
4 |
> >> model, even though it's a natural fit for the ABI_SLOT operator |
5 |
> >> model. |
6 |
> > |
7 |
> > No, I'm trying to strongly encourage people to make proper use of |
8 |
> > slots to avoid having mass breakages and annoyances on user |
9 |
> > systems, even if it means more work for developers. |
10 |
> |
11 |
> But aren't you also trying to make them deviate from upstreams' |
12 |
> release models? |
13 |
|
14 |
Only if upstream are cowboys who go out of their way to make it hard to |
15 |
slot things. |
16 |
|
17 |
> > Broken linkage due to an upgrade really shouldn't happen. |
18 |
> |
19 |
> It's certainly not ideal, but wouldn't it be useful to have the |
20 |
> flexibility to accommodate it? Let's be practical. |
21 |
|
22 |
Blockers plus SLOT provides that flexibility. |
23 |
|
24 |
-- |
25 |
Ciaran McCreesh |