given the reasoning presented by Joe and Tommy, I'm +1 for this. It strikes me that a project which releases as often as ours (~1/month) needs to have a deprecation policy based on that, not an arbitrary fixed length of time.
On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 5:06 PM, Tommy-Carlos Williams <to...@devgeeks.org>wrote: > Just my $0.02, but it almost seems like you are hampering yourselves while > at the same time introducing very little in the way of stability anyway. > > No one sees a deprecation warning and thinks "ooh… better not use that…", > they say "a warning is not an error" and move on with their project. > > As a plugin author, I was one of the proponents of the deprecation policy, > yet I still feel like plugins break every 2-3 releases anyway, so why hold > yourselves back on other changes/features? > > - tommy > > > > On 13/03/2013, at 9:14 AM, Joe Bowser <bows...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hey > > > > When we first set up the deprecation policy, we did it because we > > didn't anticipate that we would create massive breakage with Cordova. > > Unfortunately as we get closer to 3.0, it seems clear that we agreed > > on a policy that isn't allowing us to develop as fast as we would > > like. For example, we had to wait six months to remove old history > > code that we could have safely removed three months ago when it was > > clear that maintaining our own history was not the right way to work > > around issues. > > > > So, I propose that we change the deprecation policy from six months to > > the past three releases. Since we release once a month at most, this > > will allow us to update the software without having the overhead that > > we currently have with the current policy. Point releases (i.e. > > 2.5.1) would not count as a release under this policy, it would have > > to be a minor release (i.e. 2.5.0) or a major release (3.0). > > > > Any thoughts on this? > > > > Joe > >
