Re: [Monotone-devel] interface version / command matrix

[Thomas Moschny]

Thomas Keller wrote:
> > Which brings me to the question: Why don't we abandon this serial
> > interface-revision number at all, and replace it with a keyword-based
> > capabilities string resp. list?
>
> Hrm... you left out a proposal how such a keyword-based list should look
> like and how human errors can be prevented when compiling it. (Yeah, I
> know we could just make it <commandname>-<sequence_no> and raise the
> latter on each change, but still, this would be hand-compiled, unless we
> figure out something tricky and expand the automate command class by a
> version field.)

These are two questions. First, I /don't/ think there should be some number 
added to a keyword, or at least it shouldn't have a special meaning.[1]

Again, in my proposal, for a backwards compatible change or a new method, a 
new keyword should be *added*, and for a non-compatible change (client needs 
to be changed if it used that functionality), a keyword should be *removed*.

No versioning of keywords, because that (recursively) leads to the same 
problems we are discussing for the current interface_version.

- Thomas


[1] So (feature-1 != feature-2) but not (feature-1 < feature-2)


-- 
Thomas Moschny  <address@hidden>

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.