Re: rb_tree_iterate(3) documentation vs. implementation

[Thor Lancelot Simon <tls%panix.com@localhost>]

On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 09:11:34AM -0700, Jeff Rizzo wrote:
> On 8/28/12 11:12 AM, Paul Goyette wrote:
> >On Tue, 28 Aug 2012, Mindaugas Rasiukevicius wrote:
> >
> >>- There is also PR/45893.  The reason why these changes were not
> >>made are
> >> concerns about breaking backwards compatibility (apparently, there are
> >> 3rd party users of this library already).  In theory, it is not
> >>too late,
> >> as netbsd-6 will be the first release shipping rbtree(3), but
> >>we need to
> >> reach the consensus on this.
> >
> >Seems to me, we ought to get this "right" before we formally ship.
> >The "early adopters" who are already using rbtree(3) already
> >should be few in number and hopefully we could work with them to
> >adapt to the changes.
> >
> 
> Why is it that people still think that at this late date, we would
> entertain changing an API in NetBSD-6 when a release candidate is
> built and about to be announced?!?

Because this is a very serious API bug, and it might be preferable to
never ship a version of NetBSD that has it, rather than have to support
two APIs (broken and non-broken) forever?

Thor