Yes. Sorry, that should have been Nitrogen. The pushback was even to removing it in Nitrogen.
--Colin On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 12:20 PM, FREEMAN, BRIAN D <bf1...@att.com> wrote: > It seems like you need at least one release for deprecation before > removing a function. I know I have code that uses the Config subsystem so > it would be a real pain to move in one release and creates an upgrade > nightmare for me that would slow down my migration to Carbon. > > > > Brian > > > > > > *From:* controller-dev-boun...@lists.opendaylight.org [mailto: > controller-dev-boun...@lists.opendaylight.org] *On Behalf Of *Colin Dixon > *Sent:* Tuesday, November 15, 2016 12:14 PM > *To:* controller-dev > *Subject:* [controller-dev] deprecating the config subsystem in Carbon? > > > > During last week's Kernel projects call [0], I asked if and when we wanted > to deprecate the config subsystem. During the conversation, I think > everyone agreed that we should strongly discourage people from building new > projects based on it and encourage people to move toward Blueprint, which > sounds like the definition of deprecation. > > There was also seeming consensus that actually removing it in Carbon might > be a bad idea. Especially without a lot of effort. > > What are people's thoughts? > > > > Cheers, > > --Colin > > [0] https://meetings.opendaylight.org/opendaylight-meeting/2016/ > kernel_projects/opendaylight-meeting-kernel_projects.2016-11-08-17.05.html >
_______________________________________________ controller-dev mailing list controller-dev@lists.opendaylight.org https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/controller-dev
