From: "Steve Loughran" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > maybe so, but we also field many user bug > requests with 'update to nightly build' > messages, and then because of deprecation > messages encourage the users to upgrade to > attributes which we then take away. Is that > a fair thing to do? > > The problem is that if we take it away, > projects built with a version of 1.5alpha > will break. it may be tomorrow, it may be > in six months when the user pulls out a copy > from CVS. The latter is worse as they may > not know what on earth happened, especially > if they were not the original build file > author. It'll be support calls one way or the > other. > > I prefer leaving them in with a deprecation > message, though removing all documentation of > their very existence from the manual pages.
My -1 to leave it in still stands ;-) Let us not make a release with setFile in there and then fight over when to deprecate it/remove it, etc. Otherwise, do not deprecate it (even from the doc) - let users have the choice of specifying the file with the attribute name they prefer ;-) Cheers, Magesh ************************************************** * Opportunist: A person who starts taking bath * * if he accidentally falls into a river. * ************************************************** -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
