-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Chris McDonough wrote:
On Wed, 2006-06-14 at 17:03 +0200, Andreas Jung wrote:
--On 14. Juni 2006 10:59:09 -0400 Chris McDonough <chrism@plope.com> wrote:
So... you're saying that 2.10 isn't going to be released until December 2006, then? huh? The wiki says June/July...we are just running a bit late with the beta releases because Philikon needed some time for the ZPT integration..so why December?
Buh.................... oh geez, let's just forget it. ;-)
That would indeed make the deprecation period longer than 1 year, which seems to have been the intent. This makes no sense to me.
Let's start clean here.
What interval of time is reasonable for the period between a to-be-removed piece of code emitting a deprecation warning and that code's removal?
If you think 8 months is reasonable, it would make sense, for example, that the code in OFS.Application that looks for a module-scope '__ac_permissions__' in all products would be removed for 2.10 (as its deprecation warning currently states). If you think that's too short a time, then it's broken. Personally I think 8 months is too short a time, and I think it should be at least one year and I think most folks agree with this. I don't remember what the official policy is nor would I know where to find it.
But if you agree with this, in order to have a full year's deprecation period, as far as I can tell, we'd need to make a policy that deprecations can only be done in in .0 releases.
+1. A deprecation is a change in the feature set, which is *not* appropriate in third-dot releases: those releases have stability as a primary goal; cleanliness is *not* next to godliness in that context.
That would ensure at least a full year between the first deprecation and the code removal. Any other policy does not make sense if the goal is to have full-year-long deprecation periods.
And at this point, IMO, a feature isn't really deprecated until it emits a warning. Older releases didn't emit deprecation warnings (partly because there was no "warnings" module), so basically *we tried not to deprecate anything* and we always strove (but only partially succeeeded) at full-bore backwards compatibility, cruft-be-damned. Things are better now, so we can deprecate stuff, but we still need to be consistent about how we do it.
Tres. - -- =================================================================== Tres Seaver +1 202-558-7113 tseaver@palladion.com Palladion Software "Excellence by Design" http://palladion.com -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFEkC8w+gerLs4ltQ4RAlKVAKDDTlVZj4iUT7ZZzSiN7SoCS05TfwCgjcEl Hh6RL4+6bAV4kAJPkMY1emM= =LiMJ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----