Revision as of 15:37, 6 March 2014 by Psychon (Created page with "== Uli's complaints (TODO: Better headline) == * The big rename (ZFoo): I never saw a project were this was a good idea. Of course I won't stop anyone to do this, but I won't...")
Uli's complaints (TODO: Better headline)
- The big rename (ZFoo): I never saw a project were this was a good idea. Of course I won't stop anyone to do this, but I won't encourage anyone either.
- Semantic versions: So the only difference to right now is that we get another .0 at the end of the version number? ZNC had a grand total of two bug fix releases in its history (I think) and those were for CVEs...
- Binary compatibility: Just not possible. Basically every release would be a major release. Feel free to convince me otherwise, but "binary compatible" and "C++" mostly means "don't change anything".
- Message type: Since we don't promise API stability anyway, this can happen outside of ZNCv2 (aka "can be done right now, too")
- Radically reduce the amount of module hooks: "Radically" means "4"? Also, what's the point? Most modules will check for the type of message as first thing anyway and e.g. immediately return for queries. So this just makes modules more complicated
- Project structure: Are you saying that modules must not link against symbols from the znc binary? We already have a libznc.dll for cygwin. It contains everything but main(). There just is no sane way to split things up currently, but feel free to proof me wrong.
- Coding style: Hahaha. No.