[Feature] Conservative with changing public Python API's

[JCZuurmond]

Is this your first time submitting a feature request?

• I have read the expectations for open source contributors
• I have searched the existing issues, and I could not find an existing issue for this feature
• I am requesting a straightforward extension of existing dbt functionality, rather than a Big Idea better suited to a discussion

Describe the feature

Hi, I would like dbt to be conservative with public Python API's, i.e. minimize adding, removing and changing public Python API's.

This is more a "way-of-working" or "software engineering standards" request, then an typical feature request. (I did not consider it to be a bug either, maybe it could be a discussion instead of a feature.)

As a package maintainer, I feel the pain when dbt changes public Python API's. For example, see code here that handles the changing API's:

try:
    from dbt.version import semver
except ImportError:
    try:
        import dbt_common.semver as semver
    except ImportError:
        try:
            import dbt.common.semver as semver
        except ImportError:
            import dbt.semver as semver

or

from dbt.adapters.factory import register_adapter,
from dbt import version

if semver.VersionSpecifier("1", "7", "16") < version.get_installed_version():
    from dbt.mp_context import get_mp_context
    register_adapter(config, get_mp_context())
else:
    register_adapter(config)

Describe alternatives you've considered

Handling differences in Python API between dbt versions with Python logic.

Who will this benefit?

Those who build tooling using the dbt Python API.

Are you interested in contributing this feature?

No

Anything else?

• Could be part of [CT-1889] [Epic] API-ification + CLI - Phase 2 #6706
• Related to [Bug] dbt 1.8 does not work correctly with sqlfluff #10176

[dbeatty10]

This is more a "way-of-working" or "software engineering standards" request, then an typical feature request. (I did not consider it to be a bug either, maybe it could be a discussion instead of a feature.)

Definitely a great topic for a discussion, so I'm going to convert it.