Enable strict explicit API mode #168
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Rationale: We know have quite a lot of accidentally public entities while both promoting and using BCV as a standalone JAR dependency. Apart from that, we have quite an unfortunate package name 'api' that might imply all these methods are part of public API (when, in fact, it's all related to API validation). It would be nice to explicitly confine our visibilities and be more deliberate about that
qwwdfsad
force-pushed
the
explicit-api-mode
branch
from
f3730f3 to
82dc21b
Compare
fzhinkin
reviewed
Jan 12, 2024
fzhinkin
approved these changes
Jan 15, 2024
shanshin
pushed a commit
to JetBrains/kotlin
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 28, 2024
Rationale: We now have quite a lot of accidentally public entities while both promoting and using BCV as a standalone JAR dependency. Apart from that, we have quite an unfortunate package name 'api' that might imply all these methods are part of public API (when, in fact, it's all related to API validation). It would be nice to explicitly confine our visibilities and be more deliberate about that Pull request Kotlin/binary-compatibility-validator#168
shanshin
pushed a commit
to JetBrains/kotlin
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 3, 2024
Rationale: We now have quite a lot of accidentally public entities while both promoting and using BCV as a standalone JAR dependency. Apart from that, we have quite an unfortunate package name 'api' that might imply all these methods are part of public API (when, in fact, it's all related to API validation). It would be nice to explicitly confine our visibilities and be more deliberate about that Pull request Kotlin/binary-compatibility-validator#168
shanshin
pushed a commit
to JetBrains/kotlin
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 13, 2024
Rationale: We now have quite a lot of accidentally public entities while both promoting and using BCV as a standalone JAR dependency. Apart from that, we have quite an unfortunate package name 'api' that might imply all these methods are part of public API (when, in fact, it's all related to API validation). It would be nice to explicitly confine our visibilities and be more deliberate about that Pull request Kotlin/binary-compatibility-validator#168
shanshin
pushed a commit
to JetBrains/kotlin
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 23, 2024
Rationale: We now have quite a lot of accidentally public entities while both promoting and using BCV as a standalone JAR dependency. Apart from that, we have quite an unfortunate package name 'api' that might imply all these methods are part of public API (when, in fact, it's all related to API validation). It would be nice to explicitly confine our visibilities and be more deliberate about that Pull request Kotlin/binary-compatibility-validator#168 Moved from Kotlin/binary-compatibility-validator@07d46e7
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Rationale:
We know have quite a lot of accidentally public entities while both promoting and using BCV as a standalone JAR dependency. Apart from that, we have quite an unfortunate package name 'api' that might imply all these methods are part of public API (when, in fact, it's all related to API validation).
It would be nice to explicitly confine our visibilities and be more deliberate about that