@baszalmstra@tdejager this would be a breaking change.

I see two ways of proceeding with this:

• bump pixi_api_version requirement from>=1,<=2 to>=3,<=3. This would mean that we couldn't use new pixi releases anymore with older backends. This would make it pretty annoying to debug this issue for example:pixi-build-rattler-build 0.3.4 breaks Pixi GUI build pixi-build-backends#445
• add a new function initialize_v2

What do you say?

Option 3 is to just not break this interface, keep the nameproject_model and change the serialization ofPackageModel to be the same asVersionedProjectModel

Option 3 would be nicer with@wolfv's suggestion to use#[serde(rename = ...)] for the field name, and introduce another type that serializes to the same asVersionedProjectModel.

I am very strictly against breaking this API for no good reason (and renaming is not a good reason). It would be highly annoying to have to rebuild all backends (IIUC).

You can rename fields with serde so IMO it should be possible to keep things possible, even if renamed?

You need to add a superfluous field, which will be unused from then on out. Why are you against breaking the API? That's the whole reason we are versioning the API :)

I we deviate from the schema, the schema in this case (because the model.py has not been updated in a while) being the code, then it becomes in-transparent for anyone wanting to replicate the types, that does not use our rust types directly.

If its such a huge problem than I would just keep it as is.

I would opt for >=3

I would just do the break we want to do for the (lock-file-v7/dev) and this change in one go and the go for >=3 as Bas is saying.

And in the future I think we need better standardization for upgrades like this, because if pixi build is out of preview. These things are going to be cumbersome.

I think a good experience would be if we are compatible with at least the previous version of pixi-build-api for some time, but of course that's only really necessary once we exit thepreview phase.

Maybe I am stressing out too much about this, but IMO it feels like a break for "nothing" (and a break always means work because then we have to release all the backends, ..., talk to other backend implementors, ...) and we have a lot of other highly impactful things on our plates (while this would be mostly cleanup & eye candy).

you can use#[serde(rename = ...)]?
Or how is this breaking?

you can use#[serde(rename = ...)]? Or how is this breaking?

Yeah, that's an easy way around for the field name.

The other breaking thing is thatVersionedProjectModel serializes to something like1 { ...content_of_project_model }. Adapting this to be the same is described as option 3 above