[wx-dev] [all] 2.7.0 and releases organization in general

[Alex Bligh]

Vadim Zeitlin wrote:
> AB> Note it is quite possible (indeed even relatively easy) to use all
> AB> this new fun stuff with 2.6.
> 
>  So what's the difference? The new stuff can (and, I agree, will) change
> in 2.7 so people using it either with 2,7 or 2.6 may/will have to update
> their code. I don't understand how backporting it to 2.6 (and using the
> version which likely didn't receive any testing at all) is better than
> using a frozen snapshot of 2.7?

1. You can dynamic link to the main wx binary, and just static link in
    the classes you need. This saves binary size.
2. You are using a stable and reliable version of the main wx app.
3. Your areas of API instability are confined to those small areas you
    need, which are well-defined. Everything else keeps the stable
    2.6 API.

 > Let me also say that from support point of
> view I strongly prefer answering questions about bugs/problems in 2.7
> rather than in some custom Frankenstein version made of bits and pieces of
> different releases.

Yes, I agree it's less nice that way from a support point of view.
But the point I'm trying to make is that it's not a "all or nothing"
decision, if you want (say) wxAUI.

Would you seriously suggest we used a frozen 2.7 in Xara, for instance,
rather than sticking with 2.6? That would in essence mean we could
/never/ use the distro version of wx, and would thus inflate the size
of each binary by about 2.5Mb. It would also mean I'd need to keep
my eye on ALL of 2.7 for stability changes, as opposed to (in general)
3 limited areas.

> AB> I agree there is no point crying wolf and saying "this is likely
> AB> to make your CPU catch fire and erase all your data",
> 
>  The experience shows that this is, without doubt, how people understood
> the warnings about release being unstable in the past. This is why I want
> to avoid using the words "unstable" and "testing" at all and prefer using
> "development" release.
> 
> AB> but that said, we should be quite, about what will happen w.r.t. ABI
> AB> support, and err on the side of caution.
> 
>  Again, please feel free to modify docs/publicity/announce.txt to be more
> explicit about it but personally I think that current wording
> ("compatibility is not assured among between different 2.7 series
> versions") is clear enough, isn't it?

May be we need to just explain it more, but in a calm way. Perhaps
add something like:

"You should thus expect that if your program compiles under one version
of wx 2.7, it may well not compile under a subsequent version of 2.7.
If you want to guarantee your program will always compile and run, then
you may either need to ship it with a particular snapshot of 2.7,
OR perhaps 2.7 is not for you, and you should use 2.6 instead.
2.7 has also received less testing than 2.6, and many of its
features are newer; if this worries you, then consider using 2.6
instead. We do not encourage 2.7 to be put into distributions. This is
because it is still under active development, and the API between
versions may change. On the other hand, 2.7 contains many features
and indeed bug-fixes that are not present in 2.6."

Alex