ABI breakage in 2.10.4 --> 2.11.6?

[Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos]

On 02/19/2011 04:30 PM, Simon Josefsson wrote:

>>>> That's a nice question. This API is mostly interesting to people
>>>> who are porting gnutls to another crypto library. We might
>>> An API is an API, is an API.
>> Indeed but it doesn't have to be stable. That part was intended to
>> change often by design.
> I don't think that is wise in the long run -- if we want people to use
> the APIs they must be stable.  If they aren't intended to be stable, it
> is better to mark them as private functions by prefixing them with
> _gnutls instead or similar.

Indeed, but the API is already there. If we now add an underscore, then
we would break ABI... We could modify them in version 3 that breaks
the ABI anyway.

regards,
Nikos