From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29007 invoked by alias); 27 Aug 2009 11:42:28 -0000 Received: (qmail 28994 invoked by uid 22791); 27 Aug 2009 11:42:27 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from smtp6.welho.com (HELO smtp6.welho.com) (213.243.153.40) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 27 Aug 2009 11:42:16 +0000 Received: from [10.0.0.133] (cs181224175.pp.htv.fi [82.181.224.175]) by smtp6.welho.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F9525BC04A; Thu, 27 Aug 2009 14:42:13 +0300 (EEST) Message-ID: <4A967114.8080600@iki.fi> Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 11:42:00 -0000 From: Tuomo Keskitalo User-Agent: Mozilla-Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (X11/20090707) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Brian Gough CC: GSL Discuss Mailing List Subject: Re: GSL 2.0 roadmap References: <48E25CA9.6080306@iki.fi> <490DE4BD.7070907@iki.fi> <497B00F6.2080400@iki.fi> <498727E5.6080407@iki.fi> <49AA9DB5.6030908@iki.fi> <49FB01D1.30000@iki.fi> <4A7ADFDC.9080408@iki.fi> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mailing-List: contact gsl-discuss-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gsl-discuss-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2009-q3/txt/msg00019.txt.bz2 Hello, thanks for the list. I was wondering that since there will be a new major version, this might be a good chance to modify some of the APIs / frameworks. Is this OK? For example, when I was implementing msadams and msbdf for ode-initval, I had to make some modifications to the algorithms in order to fit them into GSL ode-initval framework. It is clear that the stepper, control and evolve objects would sometimes benefit from mutual communication. Should ode-initval framework be changed so that this kind of communication is possible in future? How long would it be before 2.0 is out, approximately? More or less than a year? It might be good idea to keep the 2.0 branch "unstable" for some time, before APIs are frozen (if changes to frameworks are OK). On 08/21/2009 11:41 PM, Brian Gough wrote: > * Changes for Release 2.0 > Break binary compatibility, but keep source compatibility. Does "source compatibility" mean that user interfaces / APIs should not be changed? > ** Convert to BZR? (check GPG signing and integrity guarantees) Do you mean http://bazaar-vcs.org/Bzr ? Would this mean to abandon git? -- Tuomo.Keskitalo@iki.fi http://iki.fi/tuomo.keskitalo