2011/11/8 Martin BoÝÍet <martin.bosslet / googlemail.com>:
> If I recall it correctly, the goal for 2.0 was to stay API-compatible
> to 1.9.3.
>
> Now I'm dealing with a kind of edge case in
>
> http://redmine.ruby-lang.org/issues/5600
>
> On the one hand, Steve is right, the EC class violates the contract
> of the PKey interface by providing different names than actually
> expected. On the other hand renaming the methods would break
> backwards compatibility. So I thought of aliasing the methods, but
> I'm not really convinced, because aliasing like that would unnecessarily
> bloat EC's interface.
>
> What would you recommend? Should I still alias or would breaking
> the API be acceptable because the current form breaks the design
> of the actually intended API?
>
> Thanks for your thoughts,

Hi

I think the maintainer (= you) can make a judge on kind of edge case.
Otherwise how do we maintain our code? Of course, if you makes
misjudge and makes large compatibility breakage, other developers
might try to persuade you. But it's another story.

btw, of course you need to write compatibility warnings in NEWS file.

Thank you.