53
53
Evolving interfaces
54
54
-------------------
56
If you change the behaviour of an API in an incompatible way, please
57
be sure to change its name as well. For instance, if I add a keyword
58
parameter to branch.commit - that's fine. On the other hand, if I add
59
a keyword parameter to branch.commit which is a *required* transaction
60
object, I should rename the API - i.e. to 'branch.commit_transaction'.
62
This will prevent users of the old API getting surprising results.
63
Instead, they will get an Attribute error as the API is missing, and
64
will know to update their code. If in doubt, just ask on #bzr.
56
We have a commitment to 6 months API stability - any supported symbol in a
57
release of bzr MUST NOT be altered in any way that would result in
58
breaking existing code that uses it. That means that method names,
59
parameter ordering, parameter names, variable and attribute names etc must
60
not be changed without leaving a 'deprecated forwarder' behind. This even
61
applies to modules and classes.
63
If you wish to change the behaviour of a supported API in an incompatible
64
way, you need to change its name as well. For instance, if I add a optional keyword
65
parameter to branch.commit - that's fine. On the other hand, if I add a
66
keyword parameter to branch.commit which is a *required* transaction
67
object, I should rename the API - i.e. to 'branch.commit_transaction'.
69
When renaming such supported API's, be sure to leave a deprecated_method (or
70
_function or ...) behind which forwards to the new API. See the
71
bzrlib.symbol_versioning module for decorators that take care of the
72
details for you - such as updating the docstring, and issuing a warning
73
when the old api is used.
75
For unsupported API's, it does not hurt to follow this discipline, but its
76
not required. Minimally though, please try to rename things so that
77
callers will at least get an AttributeError rather than weird results.
80
Standard parameter types
81
------------------------
83
There are some common requirements in the library: some parameters need to be
84
unicode safe, some need byte strings, and so on. At the moment we have
85
only codified one specific pattern: Parameters that need to be unicode
86
should be check via 'bzrlib.osutils.safe_unicode'. This will coerce the
87
input into unicode in a consistent fashion, allowing trivial strings to be
88
used for programmer convenience, but not performing unpredictably in the
89
presence of different locales.
247
272
Revision 0 is always the null revision; others are 1-based
248
273
indexes into the branch's revision history.
279
If you'd like to propose a change, please post to the
280
bazaar-ng@lists.canonical.com list with a patch, bzr changeset, or link to a
281
branch. Please put '[patch]' in the subject so we can pick them out, and
282
include some text explaining the change. Remember to put an update to the NEWS
283
file in your diff, if it makes any changes visible to users or plugin
284
developers. Please include a diff against mainline if you're giving a link to
287
Please indicate if you think the code is ready to merge, or if it's just a
288
draft or for discussion. If you want comments from many developers rather than
289
to be merged, you can put '[rfc]' in the subject lines.
291
Anyone is welcome to review code. There are broadly three gates for
294
* Doesn't reduce test coverage: if it adds new methods or commands,
295
there should be tests for them. There is a good test framework
296
and plenty of examples to crib from, but if you are having trouble
297
working out how to test something feel free to post a draft patch
300
* Doesn't reduce design clarity, such as by entangling objects
301
we're trying to separate. This is mostly something the more
302
experienced reviewers need to help check.
304
* Improves bugs, features, speed, or code simplicity.
306
Code that goes in should pass all three.
308
If you read a patch please reply and say so. We can use a numeric scale
309
of -1, -0, +0, +1, meaning respectively "really don't want it in current
310
form", "somewhat uncomfortable", "ok with me", and "please put it in".
311
Anyone can "vote". (It's not really voting, just a terse expression.)
313
If something gets say two +1 votes from core reviewers, and no
314
vetos, then it's OK to come in. Any of the core developers can bring it
315
into their integration branch, which I'll merge regularly. (If you do
316
so, please reply and say so.)
added
removed
HACKING
