On Tuesday 05 April 2011 10:23:33 Matti Airas wrote: > On 04.04.2011 13:03, ext anatoly techtonik wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 12:46 PM, Matti Airas<[email protected]> wrote: > >> I like both the one-argument version and the mapping interface ideas. > >> The API should've been like the one-argument version from the > >> beginning, but now that the C++ style version is out there, I guess > >> both styles need to be supported... > > > > Time to think about deprecation policy and markers? > > Yes, absolutely! > > In principle, backwards-incompatible API changes were supposed to happen > only in the major (X.0.0) releases, while the minor releases (0.Y.0) > were reserved for C++ ABI breakage and patch releases (0.0.Z) for > bugfixes and minor feature additions. According to this scheme, API > deprecation would only happen with the major releases, but I don't think > this would be practical, because the major releases will most likely be > very infrequent. > > How about allowing deprecation of simple API features (basically, > changes in specific function signatures etc) in the minor releases? > Then, when a feature is marked deprecated the deprecated feature could > be removed in the next minor release after a suitable cool-down period. > I'd propose a cool-down period of a minimum of one year between the > deprecation and the feature removal to give application developers ample > time to update the APIs in their applications.
I agree, we just need to document it somehow, probably on our wiki. > Cheers, > > ma. -- Hugo Parente Lima INdT - Instituto Nokia de Tecnologia
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ PySide mailing list [email protected] http://lists.pyside.org/listinfo/pyside
