On Jan 5, 2014, at 2:53 PM, Kristian Rosenvold <[email protected]> 
wrote:

> I just see little point in pissing off users with extensive breakage if we
> have simple means of assessing the consequences before we do it.

I'm not disagreeing with you about running what we have and knowing what 
breaks.  It's easy enough to make a branch and run the builds to let people 
know.

> Deprecations come in all sorts, some turn out to be like the "new" style
> configuration for the site plugin; where exposure to the wild revealed that
> the old solution had important capabilities the new solution was lacking.
> 
> It's really just a matter of having some idea of how much stuff breaks. Of
> course the code should be rewritten. Without any real knowledge of the
> impact of removing the methods, we're really only guessing.
> 
> Kristian
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2014/1/5 Jason van Zyl <[email protected]>
> 
>> In general for deprecated code that's in the year or so old range I think
>> that strategy is fine. We just haven't been very good removing stuff.
>> 
>> In the case of this code it's had the deprecated warning for a long time
>> and if it's removed and it breaks code then that code needs to change IMO.
>> If they are plugins those plugins can update their code along with prereq.
>> The authors can push out a final version for the 3.x line and then move
>> forward with working with 4.0.
>> 
>> On Jan 5, 2014, at 10:41 AM, Kristian Rosenvold <
>> [email protected]> wrote:
>> 
>>> I think we should remove any deprecations that do not break trunk of
>>> maven-plugins and mojo-trunk, and call it 3.2; at least do this as an
>>> initial move. Then we can determine the scope of /use/ of deprecations.
>>> 
>>> I am very skeptical to removing stuff wholesale "just because" we
>>> deprecated it 4 years ago, I think a slightly more careful approach is
>>> better.
>>> 
>>> Kristian
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 2014/1/5 Jason van Zyl <[email protected]>
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Jan 4, 2014, at 4:56 PM, Stephen Connolly <
>>>> [email protected]> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Doing so would make the next version 4.0 and not 3.2
>>>>> 
>>>>> I don't mind if we want to do that, but we were supposed to be pushing
>> a
>>>>> 3.2 out at the start of Oct and I do wonder what the status is there
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 3.1.1 was released on September 17th so we're a bit overdue for trying
>> to
>>>> keep the quarterly schedule, but I asked to update the source levels
>>>> because it was after September. I didn't know that implied a release
>> right
>>>> then. But then an email discussion chain ensued and I lost track.
>>>> 
>>>> If we're going to bump to 4.0 then I will sift through the core and look
>>>> for more deprecated code. Might as well do a removal, and bump the
>> runtime
>>>> level to 1.6.
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Saturday, 4 January 2014, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> I'm doing some cleanup in the core in preparation for some refactoring
>>>> I'd
>>>>>> like to propose in the coming months and the deprecated methods  in
>>>>>> MavenSession have been there for over 4 years. I'd like to, at some
>>>> point
>>>>>> soon, be able to move the core and plugins to toward being fully
>> JSR330
>>>> so
>>>>>> I'd like to start purging references to Plexus. There are lots of them
>>>> in
>>>>>> MavenSession.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> If no one has any objections I'd like to remove the deprecated
>>>>>> constructors and methods from MavenSession.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Jason
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> Jason van Zyl
>>>>>> Founder,  Apache Maven
>>>>>> http://twitter.com/jvanzyl
>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> --
>>>>> Sent from my phone
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> 
>>>> Jason
>>>> 
>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>>>> Jason van Zyl
>>>> Founder,  Apache Maven
>>>> http://twitter.com/jvanzyl
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> 
>> Jason
>> 
>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>> Jason van Zyl
>> Founder,  Apache Maven
>> http://twitter.com/jvanzyl
>> ---------------------------------------------------------
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 

Thanks,

Jason

----------------------------------------------------------
Jason van Zyl
Founder,  Apache Maven
http://twitter.com/jvanzyl
---------------------------------------------------------







Reply via email to