2011/11/9 KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro / gmail.com>:
> 2011/11/8 Martin Bo=DFlet <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 (=3D 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.
>

Ok, I'll try to find the best solution then, thanks a lot for clarifying!
-Martin