Joe Orton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Wed, Dec 01, 2004 at 10:43:22AM -0500, Joe Schaefer wrote: >> Stas Bekman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >> > One needs to go through a deprecation cycle before any backwards >> > compatibility in the same generation of the project can be dropped. >> >> Heh, a search for "deprecation cycle" on marc's [EMAIL PROTECTED] archives >> comes up empty. > > I'm not sure really what you expect. That no API changes can be made > during 2.1 development unless they were predicted ahead of time by N > years and marked with a red dot?
I think what Stas was expecting something similar to the perl5 versioning rules: misfeatures that occur minor version $X (X even) cannot be removed until $X+4, and must first be marked deprecated in $X+2. I'm just pointing out that [EMAIL PROTECTED] has never discussed doing something like that, so Stas is mistaken if he's expecting [EMAIL PROTECTED] to follow such rules. Not that I think it'd be a bad thing though, because it would provide specific guidance about when to bump the minor number. But I won't be lobbying for this on [EMAIL PROTECTED] any time soon :-) -- Joe Schaefer --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
