Re: Choices in Go OpenGL bindings
30 views
Skip to first unread message
Peter Waller
Jul 6, 2014, 12:54:18 PM7/6/14
to go-gl
On 6 July 2014 00:01, Dmitri Shuralyov <shur...@gmail.com> wrote:
+1
Thanks for thinking about this Dmitri. I started the go-gl organization when Piotr was falling behind on inbound pull requests, and felt that it would be a good thing if there was a community of maintainers with merge privileges that could be able to make sure that things don't go too stale.
I'd like to make it really clear that anyone with a significant go related OpenGL package is welcome to join the go-gl namespace, and we should also consider anyone who has made contributions welcome to join as a maintainer.
The main constraint in my view is that it's important that we try hard not to break API backwards compatibility within part of the namespace which has been in use for a while (e.g, go-gl/gl). I would accept it in rare cases though (such as #158) where it wouldn't have been possible to use it correctly without a change.
If we need to do something drastically new we should make a newly named package (maybe with a version number in it). In hindsight it is unfortunate that something like gopkg.in didn't exist when we started. I think there is too much code out there now pointing at go-gl/gl to change it significantly, so we'll have to use go-gl/gl2 or something else if we have a new OpenGL interface.
If and when we do that, it'll be important to point people to the most recent repository that they should start using, if there is a version which supersedes.
Whilst I started the organization, I don't feel I own it. And I don't have as much time and personal interest in it as a year or two ago when I started, since other responsibilities are taking more of my time. So I'm very happy if consensus happens in my absence.
Regards,
- Peter
#158 - https://github.com/go-gl/gl/pull/158
Please share your thoughts if you think the above is a good idea.
+1
Thanks for thinking about this Dmitri. I started the go-gl organization when Piotr was falling behind on inbound pull requests, and felt that it would be a good thing if there was a community of maintainers with merge privileges that could be able to make sure that things don't go too stale.
I'd like to make it really clear that anyone with a significant go related OpenGL package is welcome to join the go-gl namespace, and we should also consider anyone who has made contributions welcome to join as a maintainer.
The main constraint in my view is that it's important that we try hard not to break API backwards compatibility within part of the namespace which has been in use for a while (e.g, go-gl/gl). I would accept it in rare cases though (such as #158) where it wouldn't have been possible to use it correctly without a change.
If we need to do something drastically new we should make a newly named package (maybe with a version number in it). In hindsight it is unfortunate that something like gopkg.in didn't exist when we started. I think there is too much code out there now pointing at go-gl/gl to change it significantly, so we'll have to use go-gl/gl2 or something else if we have a new OpenGL interface.
If and when we do that, it'll be important to point people to the most recent repository that they should start using, if there is a version which supersedes.
Whilst I started the organization, I don't feel I own it. And I don't have as much time and personal interest in it as a year or two ago when I started, since other responsibilities are taking more of my time. So I'm very happy if consensus happens in my absence.
Regards,
- Peter
#158 - https://github.com/go-gl/gl/pull/158
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages