ABI compatability and SOVERSION about s2geometry HOT 7 CLOSED

P.S. Just FYI: s2geometry is about to find its way into main Debian right now:
https://ftp-master.debian.org/new/s2geometry_0.10.0-2.html

from s2geometry.

Are you planning to remain ABI compatible over all of ${PROJECT_VERSION_MAJOR}?

I was planning to, once it reached version 1, but we haven't promised anything. Definitely no promises for version 0.

CMakeLists.txt contains SOVERSION ${PROJECT_VERSION_MAJOR}, which a Debian developer has called "optimistic".

Yeah, this would probably mean that nearly every release is a new major version.

Do you have any suggestions of best practices? Should we remove SOVERSION?

from s2geometry.

Right, now you need to bump the major version on all ABI breaks. You can just do that and keep things that way, but
how about simply manually setting
SOVERSION 0
and bumping it manually when you break the ABI? Or remove SOVERSION (at least while you are in 0.x area), and don't promise anything at all....

Both options are possible, I guess.

from s2geometry.

how about simply manually setting SOVERSION 0 and bumping it manually when you break the ABI?

We'll update the project version appropriately.

Or remove SOVERSION

Looks like SOVERSION was added in #161, so some people might not like that.

According to SemVer, version 0 promises nothing. Is that ok for you?

from s2geometry.

Yes, that would be fine with us.

from s2geometry.

In addition to the general "version 0 promises nothing" warning, I'd like to call out that we want to change the python bindings significantly (like every function name changes) soon.

https://ftp-master.debian.org/new/s2geometry_0.10.0-2.html isn't there anymore, but it may be better to hold off on packaging the python parts so we don't get a bunch of new users who are then soon broken. @spaetz What do you think?

from s2geometry.

from s2geometry.