Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Stop referring to GDExtension as experimental #10827

Draft
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

dsnopek
Copy link
Contributor

@dsnopek dsnopek commented Apr 1, 2025

Per the discussion at the previous GDExtension meeting, we think it's time to stop saying that GDExtension is experimental :-)

I'm going to mark this as a DRAFT so that it doesn't cause conflicts with #10631 - it'll be much easier to rebase this PR than that one

But we can still discuss these specific changes to the text

@dsnopek dsnopek marked this pull request as draft April 1, 2025 19:32
@dsnopek dsnopek requested review from paddy-exe and Ivorforce April 1, 2025 19:44
@skyace65
Copy link
Contributor

skyace65 commented Apr 1, 2025

Are we considering GDExtension non experimental as of 4.4, or as of 4.5 when that releases?

@dsnopek
Copy link
Contributor Author

dsnopek commented Apr 2, 2025

We discussed this at the GDExtension meeting on 2025-03-18, and I believe the consensus was that we were considering it non-experimental since 4.1 retroactively, because the only technical change we can point to as far as when it became non-experimental was the compatibility break in 4.1. Whereas if we were to say it became non-experimental in 4.4, it would be kind of artificial because nothing in particular changed in 4.4 in order to cross that threshold.

However, I'm curious what other folks think!

Relatedly, we're also planning to do a "GDExtension retrospective" blog post in order to "announce" that it's no longer experimental.

Copy link
Contributor

@paddy-exe paddy-exe left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Just some minor language nitpick IMHO.

I also think 4.1 should be recognized as stable as David explained. We also cherry-picked a LOT of PRs back to it if that was possible.

@dsnopek dsnopek force-pushed the gdextension-not-experimental-anymore branch from 6e52912 to 6805be7 Compare April 4, 2025 14:09
@dsnopek dsnopek requested a review from paddy-exe April 4, 2025 14:10
@dsnopek dsnopek force-pushed the gdextension-not-experimental-anymore branch from 6805be7 to 0a7aa19 Compare April 4, 2025 14:15
Copy link
Contributor

@paddy-exe paddy-exe left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks good to me now 👍🏻

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants