Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2015 10:30:12 -0800 From: NGie Cooper <yaneurabeya@gmail.com> To: Allan Jude <allanjude@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: libXO-ification - Why - and is it a symptom of deeper issues? Message-ID: <35BF04D9-332D-49E5-8927-AB542CADDB98@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <5648CD87.4020305@freebsd.org> References: <0650CA79-5711-44BF-AC3F-0C5C5B6E5BD9@rdsor.ro> <CAJ-Vmokfo_BGWji9TrgQ40oRxqht9-2iEZVon7aQxR_93Ufxyg@mail.gmail.com> <702A1341-FB0C-41FA-AB95-F84858A7B3A4@rdsor.ro> <CAJ-VmoniBAmWTf9MkCCMYhRbPLc=0%2Bz5kRSijXfqX9VZvm8jDg@mail.gmail.com> <5648C60B.6060205@freebsd.org> <6EDFB74B-2206-46E7-85F7-8DE05FB6D325@gmail.com> <5648CA60.3060800@freebsd.org> <F9E0136C-9BFA-4FE7-A623-9F5D8871A6D1@gmail.com> <5648CC0F.6050708@freebsd.org> <5648CD87.4020305@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> On Nov 15, 2015, at 10:23, Allan Jude <allanjude@freebsd.org> wrote: =85 > Also, libxo now supports the versioning of output, to make it possible > for your json parser to detect when a change to the schema has been = made. This is the ideal scenario, yes, if there was some design around the = libxo=92ification (even man page documentation would have been nice, but = that wasn=92t done :/). However, as I=92ve said many times before: no = spec, no tests -> not useful to endorse to others because things can = change at any given point in time and I don=92t want to be the support = hub for all things libxo at $work. Thanks, -NGie=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?35BF04D9-332D-49E5-8927-AB542CADDB98>