Retroactively deprecating functionality seems like an odd thing to do. From my standpoint of a user of software I wouldn't expect that features of a minor version were deprecated in a patch release in order to be removed at the next major/minor release.
On Apr 2, 2012, at 9:25 AM, Chris Price wrote: > If we're thinking about deprecating in 2.7.x, we should probably make the > changes soon (perhaps in a branch off of Telly) and try to have some folks > spend some time testing against existing modules. I don't have a clear > picture of how wide the impact could be, and with Telly shipping in a few > months that seems like a very short deprecation window. That said, it would > be awesome if we determined that it was feasible. > > On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 8:54 AM, Nigel Kersten <ni...@puppetlabs.com> wrote: > So to translate from the bug report, it sounds like we're going to (go > back to?) representing :undef as nil inside Ruby? > > Whether that be templates or the Ruby DSL? > > is that right? > > I feel like this is the right thing to do. :undef is all we have to > represent nil in the Puppet DSL, and it's a bit torturous moving > between Ruby and the DSL when :undef isn't nil. > > Are we going to deprecate this for all of Telly and then change it in > the next major release? Given the amount of anecdotal pain we've had > in this area, is it feasible to admit we got this wrong and start > deprecating in 2.7.x ? > > > > On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 12:21 PM, Chris Price <ch...@puppetlabs.com> wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > I'm reviewing a ticket related to how we handle "undef" when it is passed to > > a puppet function. The current behavior is to convert it to an empty string > > before passing it off to the function body, but I'm not sure that's the > > right thing to do as it seems to eliminate the ability to handle some valid > > use cases where there is a semantic distinction between "undef" and the > > empty string. > > > > This behavior has been discussed before--about a year ago--and it seems like > > there were some folks in favor of the current empty-string approach. I'd > > welcome comments on the ticket! > > > > http://projects.puppetlabs.com/issues/13210 > > > > Thanks > > Chris > > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > > "Puppet Developers" group. > > To post to this group, send email to puppet-dev@googlegroups.com. > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > puppet-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > > For more options, visit this group at > > http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-dev?hl=en. > > > > -- > Nigel Kersten > Product Manager, Puppet Labs > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Puppet Developers" group. > To post to this group, send email to puppet-dev@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > puppet-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-dev?hl=en. > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Puppet Developers" group. > To post to this group, send email to puppet-dev@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > puppet-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-dev?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Developers" group. To post to this group, send email to puppet-dev@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to puppet-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-dev?hl=en.
