Anyone using Cedar Backup as a library?

[Kenneth Pronovici <kenneth.pronovici@cedar-solutions.com>]

Is anyone using Cedar Backup as a library, or do you all use Cedar
Backup just as a command-line tool?

The reason I ask is backwards compatibility.  Up until now, I have
attempted to make each new release's programming interface (i.e. public
methods and functions) 100% backwards-compatible with release 2.0.0.
That means that there is now quite a bit of excess cruft -- the result
of refactoring and the like -- left around for no reason other than to
maintain the public interface.

I can live with the level of cruft currently in the code.  However, I am
considering a substantial change in the extension interface and possibly
a some changes to the configuration code.  It would be easiest if I
could be free to reorganize the code in whatever way works best, rather
than having to maintain the obsolete public interface.

I am also interested in opinions about how I should version the code if
I do break the public interface.  By conventional library versioning
standards, I really should bump the major number from 2 to 3 (for
instance, go from 2.12.00 to 3.00.00).  However, I'm not sure I want to
do this because it implies a new Debian package cedar-backup3.  Anyone
have any thoughts on the subject?

Thanks for the feedback.

KEN

-- 
Kenneth J. Pronovici <pronovic@ieee.org>
http://www.cedar-solutions.com/


-- 
To unsubscribe, send mail to cedar-backup-users-unsubscribe@cedar-solutions.com.