Skip to content

Conversation

@gummif
Copy link
Member

@gummif gummif commented Sep 2, 2019

It is standard practice to have exported headers in a directory called include. I would have liked to move the code to include/cppzmq but that would be a breaking change forcing code to do #include <cppzmq/zmq.hpp> (maybe for the next major release?).

@coveralls
Copy link

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 266

  • 0 of 0 changed or added relevant lines in 0 files are covered.
  • No unchanged relevant lines lost coverage.
  • Overall coverage decreased (-0.5%) to 85.073%

Totals Coverage Status
Change from base Build 264: -0.5%
Covered Lines: 644
Relevant Lines: 757

💛 - Coveralls

@bluca
Copy link
Member

bluca commented Sep 2, 2019

please don't, this will break a lot of scripts and packages

@gummif
Copy link
Member Author

gummif commented Sep 2, 2019

@bluca Yes it will for non-cmake consumers. Would it make you more comfortable if this change were made in a major release (v5.0)?

@bluca
Copy link
Member

bluca commented Sep 2, 2019

Sorry, but I don't feel like a cosmetic change on the repository layout is a good enough reason to break compatibility for all distros, regardless of versioning

@sigiesec
Copy link
Member

sigiesec commented Sep 2, 2019

While I don't particularly like the current layout either, I agree with @bluca here. We only have two header files, so the situation on our side is not bad enough to warrant all the troubles a layout change might cause.

@gummif
Copy link
Member Author

gummif commented Sep 3, 2019

I understand the concerns and this PR can be closed. Although I disagree that code layout change are unacceptable at the same time breaking code changes are introduced with a major version. I guess that's a conflict between long term backwards compatibility and using new features and best practices.

@bluca bluca closed this Sep 4, 2019
@bluca
Copy link
Member

bluca commented Sep 4, 2019

Breaking backward compatibility can happen and the process is defined in C4 - but given the huge inconvenience, it should balanced by a very compelling requirement

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants