From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by arlo.cworth.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F5EB6DE12E8 for ; Mon, 7 Dec 2015 15:37:40 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at cworth.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -8.849 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.849 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AM.WBL=-8, ALL_TRUSTED=-1, AWL=0.151] autolearn=disabled Received: from arlo.cworth.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (arlo.cworth.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AKjft_JlBK7j; Mon, 7 Dec 2015 15:37:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from wondoo.home.cworth.org (unknown [10.0.0.1]) (Authenticated sender: cworth) by arlo.cworth.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 07F896DE0B2F; Mon, 7 Dec 2015 15:37:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from wondoo.home.cworth.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by wondoo.home.cworth.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EB76514C4076; Mon, 7 Dec 2015 15:37:38 -0800 (PST) To: Daniel Kahn Gillmor , notmuch mailing list Subject: Re: NOTMUCH_STATUS_LAST_STATUS problematic across additive library upgrades In-Reply-To: <87y4d5q38i.fsf@alice.fifthhorseman.net> References: <87y4d5q38i.fsf@alice.fifthhorseman.net> User-Agent: Notmuch/0.21 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/24.5.1 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Sender: cworth@cworth.org From: Carl Worth Date: Mon, 07 Dec 2015 15:37:33 -0800 Message-ID: <87vb89n83m.fsf@wondoo.home.cworth.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-BeenThere: notmuch@notmuchmail.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: "Use and development of the notmuch mail system." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 07 Dec 2015 23:37:40 -0000 --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain On Mon, Dec 07 2015, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote: > In particular, if a user builds against version X of the library, then > version X+1 is released with a new status code (but no > backward-incompatible API/ABI changes that would require an SONAME > bump), then the value of NOTMUCH_STATUS_LAST_STATUS would change, but > the application using notmuch wouldn't know about it. Can you envision a scenario where this would actually lead to a bug? It's meant to provide a convenience. It's clearly documented as "not an actual status value", so, yes, no client code should ever be passing that value into the library. -Carl --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJWZhg+AAoJEGACM7qeVNxhZH4QALu/bfUH791a4rTFt2KNEcmi wyXL//yp67zz8C9zhksnzeUVDBUUBzw4WRecAS+IMAnrvaQlHXcDPPHrvQjVC81S gAqtJEZrMTv2p2at8IPkx6rHVnyQnxZ6waa7zaIxuc+Ekmg4xf7dKfOVxVCqE2ot 2eK5s6Mo3ayfq6eH3OZNrM4pIgMRBiXKvBTBPknqvuq8khUU8/As+qVkppeFiZR3 RcbBsMUNQ3b007oIhlTUj4RdYPGzHHEXgjF+kW6ykUaGKlSKE+ji6SE4aF3+CU9Z C5hCej2KvzZwndrTG470Mhr/7t2imCeJ8+Otq0anj4qa9ZTHS9rnfukpB0p777iX N3H7QRw01BYMsm5YwnWs1btu5hAj7qFxhZY/DfdBN7Jnop+pTwfxV5AgL/25hYe+ hIURsNqj6tDN0qXmvDJzKNOfkFllC1Se01DQGAg5d45dpWbGj3Phy4gJzh5bIPch 4JBn3g5rkb7l9FPGRM80vuYgJbnyMzPNZmi5W17jx2QHNlvn1gvm4IaPO1k+zHUF a43OM+atqtY2nTCa6XsCvZqOihHzo0JLbbS9poHy4xLtitNh2NDVmBu/4ngjnp4D LybnkZJK27KzRu6nW2KWvSRca1OboJ9UeUIEQyCYtv/Wb7fLN4OO06XmCSk7Kbyv q44z5aP1a7xvVCczUxx0 =1CDH -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--