Re: [Libcdio-devel] RFC: Two releases or one?

[Leon Merten Lohse]

Hi,

actually there are a few more changes I did not commit yet including
support for all 8 blocks and a rewritten parser routine that does not
rely on shady gcc features (packed pragma, bitfields).
I implemented some new aspects of CD-TEXT that required new functions.
In order to keep the code as clean as possible I changed the internal
data structure so that there is just one CD-TEXT struct and not one for
every track, because the latter does not make any sense. Either there is
CD-TEXT on the disc or there is not. There cannot be CD-TEXT for just a
few tracks.
All the libcdio CD-TEXT functions work on a CD-TEXT object. It would
have been a pain to rewrite the existing functions to work with the new
data structure and again imho it did not make any sense the way it was.

So since I did not know of any program really using libcdio's CD-TEXT I
think the loss was not too big.

I plan to commit the last api changes (language selection) this weekend.
This way it is going to be a single rather big incompatible change.

If you have objections, I can try to write a workaround but it is not
going to be pretty and will not help making the api easier.

Regards
Leon

On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 05:08:15PM +0100, Nicolas Boullis wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 05:56:32PM -0500, Rocky Bernstein wrote:
> > 
> > The new cdtext_get() adds a parameter for the track. I suppose we could
> > have and added a new routine rather than modify the old one in an
> > incompatible way.
> > 
> > I don't have strong feelings on this. Perhaps Leon could comment.
> 
> With my Debian hat on, I prefer when there is no incompatible change, at 
> least for the binary interface.
> Each time the binary interface of a lirary changes incompatibly, the 
> SONAME has to change, and all programs that use this library must be 
> rebuilt.
> Currently, the number of programs that use libcdio is not too huge (at 
> least within the programs provided by Debian). But the more libcdio will 
> be adopted the more complex those transitions will be...
> 
> 
> > I had considered one branch having
> >   * paranoia removed
> >   * cd-text changes
> >   * whatever compatible UDF/Joliet/Rock Ridge fixes
> > 
> > And in another the incompatible header changes plus whatever the
> > UDF/Joliet/Rock Ridge changes aren't
> > in the first release.
> 
> As far as I understand it, I see no reason to want 2 releases.
> 
> 
> -- 
> Nicolas
>