[gdal-dev] Which version number for the next GDAL release : 1.10 or 2.0 ?

[Ari Jolma]

Concerning the stub implementations, there are a lot of examples where the
current api contains arguments, which are just stubs for future...



--



Lähetetty Nokia N9 -puhelimestani



Even Rouault kirjoitti 7.11.2012 21:45:

>
> RFC 39 (the layer algebra) does break the C ABI, I believe.

No, it does not break anything. It *adds* new entry points, like all
previous
releases have done. Which is OK as far as backward compatibility is
concerned.

> How about making the changes to the API but not implement them...?

That's an option that could be done for some changes perhaps, but to do it,
you must have sufficiently thought to the implementation to come with a good
API, and when you're at that point, you've already spent enough energy that
it's better to do the implementation itself rather than coming back to it
months later.
I'm not sure how users would deal with stub implementations of the API: that
could be confusing.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/gdal-dev/attachments/20121108/cd364462/attachment.html>