From: "Martin Boßlet" Date: 2011-11-09T11:11:48+09:00 Subject: [ruby-core:40870] Re: Question regarding Ruby 2.0 backwards compatibility 2011/11/9 KOSAKI Motohiro : > 2011/11/8 Martin Bo�let : >> If I recall it correctly, the goal for 2.0 was to stay API-compatible >> to 1.9.3. >> >> Now I'm dealing with a kind of edge case in >> >> http://redmine.ruby-lang.org/issues/5600 >> >> On the one hand, Steve is right, the EC class violates the contract >> of the PKey interface by providing different names than actually >> expected. On the other hand renaming the methods would break >> backwards compatibility. So I thought of aliasing the methods, but >> I'm not really convinced, because aliasing like that would unnecessarily >> bloat EC's interface. >> >> What would you recommend? Should I still alias or would breaking >> the API be acceptable because the current form breaks the design >> of the actually intended API? >> >> Thanks for your thoughts, > > Hi > > I think the maintainer (= you) can make a judge on kind of edge case. > Otherwise how do we maintain our code? Of course, if you makes > misjudge and makes large compatibility breakage, other developers > might try to persuade you. But it's another story. > > btw, of course you need to write compatibility warnings in NEWS file. > > Thank you. > Ok, I'll try to find the best solution then, thanks a lot for clarifying! -Martin