On Thu, 2013-06-27 at 17:12 +0100, Fraser Adams wrote: > On 27/06/13 06:10, Andrew Stitcher wrote: > > Last week we has a small (number of people) but aomewhat heated > > discussion about removing some pieces of deprecated and obsolete QMFv1 > > code; and removing the qpid::client header files so that no one can use > > this API outside the qpid build itself. > I wouldn't have called it heated :-) Seriously though I'd like to hope > it was more constructive than heated - my intention was mainly to fly a > "user focussed" flag and certainly wasn't to annoy/irritate/otherwise > upset anyone, if anything I suggested did come across as heated then I > apologise.
I may have been exaggerating for effect - I'll turn my trolling setting down ;-) I'm not trying to offend anyone just to be a little light hearted (I did say "somewhat" which I realise now can mean subtly different things to different people). > > > > There was some grumbling about the QMF removals, but no conclusive > > reason not to as far as I could tell. > Again comments made weren't intentionally "grumbly" rather they were to > flag my preference for what might be considered a defined > "decommissioning strategy". I was think grumbling more as a kind of low rumbling noise ;-), but I completely accept that we've not been too good at bringing these kinds of discussion to a conclusion in the past, which is why I have called for an actual vote. > > FWIW I really like what you're suggesting below (and for autotools). > Indeed I'd like to propose that the project adopts this approach in > general as a model for "decommissioning" capabilities, I think that > adds clarity if we follow a common approach for this sort of thing. Thank you - I agree this would make a reasonable model for doing this kind of thing in the future. Andrew --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
