-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3.4k
Stop referring to GDExtension as experimental #10827
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
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Stop referring to GDExtension as experimental #10827
Conversation
Are we considering GDExtension non experimental as of 4.4, or as of 4.5 when that releases? |
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. |
There was a problem hiding this 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.
6e52912
to
6805be7
Compare
6805be7
to
0a7aa19
Compare
There was a problem hiding this 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 👍🏻
0a7aa19
to
182927c
Compare
Now that #10631 is merged, I've rebased and taken this out of DRAFT |
Adding this to the 4.5 milestone as it will not be cherrypickable, since #10631 is not. |
break compatibility in order to fix major bugs or include critical features. | ||
For example, GDExtensions created for Godot 4.0 aren't compatible with Godot | ||
4.1 (see :ref:`updating_your_gdextension_for_godot_4_1`). | ||
There is one exception to this: extensions targeting Godot 4.0 will _not_ work with |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
There is one exception to this: extensions targeting Godot 4.0 will _not_ work with | |
There is one exception to this: extensions targeting Godot 4.0 will **not** work with |
minor versions, but not vice-versa. For example, a GDExtension targeting Godot 4.2 | ||
should work just fine in Godot 4.3, but one targeting Godot 4.3 won't work in Godot 4.2. | ||
|
||
There is one exception to this: extensions targeting Godot 4.0 will _not_ work with |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
There is one exception to this: extensions targeting Godot 4.0 will _not_ work with | |
There is one exception to this: extensions targeting Godot 4.0 will **not** work with |
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