Re: ABI breakage in 2.10.4 --> 2.11.6?

[Simon Josefsson]

Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos <address@hidden> writes:

> On 02/19/2011 04:30 PM, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>
>>>>> That's a nice question. This API is mostly interesting to people
>>>>> who are porting gnutls to another crypto library. We might
>>>> An API is an API, is an API.
>>> Indeed but it doesn't have to be stable. That part was intended to
>>> change often by design.
>> I don't think that is wise in the long run -- if we want people to use
>> the APIs they must be stable.  If they aren't intended to be stable, it
>> is better to mark them as private functions by prefixing them with
>> _gnutls instead or similar.
>
> Indeed, but the API is already there. If we now add an underscore, then
> we would break ABI... We could modify them in version 3 that breaks
> the ABI anyway.

Yes.  Fortunately I don't think many projects have started using it
since it is such a recent feature and it something that is rarely used.
So we could mark it as deprecated in 2.12.0 and remove it for 3.0.

/Simon