Re: Speaking of deprecation...

On Fri, 8 Feb 2002, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I really _hate_ the 'deprecated' message in ant. Especially when > it's because someone has a different taste and doesn't like the old > name. Help us reword the message 8-) Most of the time, it is not taste, but consistency that makes us rename a

Re: Speaking of deprecation...

On Tue, 12 Feb 2002, Jose Alberto Fernandez wrote: > I do not think DEPRECATION should be in the same scale > as regular messages. To me -deprecation should present > the deprecated messages independently of the levels of > logging. IMHO the right solution for logging would be to use (delegate)

Re: Speaking of deprecation...

--- Magesh Umasankar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: "Conor MacNeill" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Please find attached a patch that introduces > -deprecation to the command line. > Project.MSG_DEPRECATED > is introduced between INFO & VERBOSE. > I do not think DEPRECATION should be in the sam

Re: Speaking of deprecation...

From: "Steve Loughran" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > As I have modified the value of some public static finals, > > viz. Project.DEBUG and Project.VERBOSE, mandatory > > recompiling of all of Ant's source code is needed. > > If you can suggest a cleaner way to do this and avoid > > this penalty, I am al

Re: Speaking of deprecation...

- Original Message - From: "Magesh Umasankar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Ant Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, February 11, 2002 8:13 PM Subject: Re: Speaking of deprecation... > Please find attached a patch that introduces

Re: Speaking of deprecation...

From: "Conor MacNeill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Magesh Umasankar wrote: > > > From: "Conor MacNeill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > >>>But maybe we can add a -deprecated to Ant to be javac like. > >>> > >>> > >>What about if deprecation warnings were a different message level, > >>something like Project.M

Re: Speaking of deprecation...

- Original Message - From: "Stephane Bailliez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Ant Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2002 11:04 AM Subject: Re: Speaking of deprecation... > - Original Message - > From: "Steve L

Re: Speaking of deprecation...

--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Sun, 10 Feb 2002, Diane Holt wrote: > > --- Sam Ruby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Just curious, do you also do this for the perhaps most basic of > > > build tools of them all: javac? > > > > The whole JDK goes into source control. > > And is this what we sho

Re: Speaking of deprecation...

- Original Message - From: "Steve Loughran" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > snapshot easily takes 1 GB. (this is where I wished all HTML docs could be > > in a JavaHelp or CHM-like format automatically) > > www.iseran.com/stuff : JDK130 and J2EE sdks in chm Cool ! But"You don't have permission

Re: Speaking of deprecation...

- Original Message - From: "Stephane Bailliez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Ant Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2002 3:20 AM Subject: Re: Speaking of deprecation... A > snapshot easily takes 1 GB. (this is where I w

Re: Speaking of deprecation...

Costin Manolache wrote: > > or any of the things Sam got with gump and jdk1.4 Still do. http://nagoya.apache.org/~rubys/gump/java14/index.html - Sam Ruby -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: For additional commands, e-mail:

Re: Speaking of deprecation...

On Sun, 10 Feb 2002, Diane Holt wrote: > --- Sam Ruby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Just curious, do you also do this for the perhaps most basic of build > > tools of them all: javac? > > The whole JDK goes into source control. And is this what we should recommend our developers to do ? Reprodu

Re: Speaking of deprecation...

On Sun, 10 Feb 2002, Sam Ruby wrote: > Again, FWIW, I support the removal of deprecated features for which active > users can't be identified. And these discussions typically go round in > circles without making forward progress unless there is a focus on specific > items to be removed. Blanket

Re: Speaking of deprecation...

--- Stephane Bailliez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Build engineer is a full time job and I wish I had someone like Diane to > take care of that. Well, I am currently available -- but I suspect the commute would be kind of a bear :) Diane = ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) _

Re: Speaking of deprecation...

--- Sam Ruby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > For everybody, there are some tools which are merely installed. Where > this line is drawn varies. Indeed. At one company, I had (almost) an entire OS in source control, and the build env was a chroot into that OS. But as Costin pointed out, you can't re

Re: Speaking of deprecation...

--- Sam Ruby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Just curious, do you also do this for the perhaps most basic of build > tools of them all: javac? The whole JDK goes into source control. Diane = ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) __ Do You Yahoo!? Send FREE Valen

Re: Speaking of deprecation...

- Original Message - From: "Sam Ruby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > And there aren't some nasty bugs fixed between Ant versions? For that > matter, aren't some nasty versions fixed between OS versions (for whatever > OS you happen to be running?) When the compiler crashes every 5 compiles, this

Re: Speaking of deprecation...

Stefane Bailliez wrote: > > There are some nasty bugs fixed between JDK versions, I want all to benefit > immediately And there aren't some nasty bugs fixed between Ant versions? For that matter, aren't some nasty versions fixed between OS versions (for whatever OS you happen to be running?) For

Re: Speaking of deprecation...

- Original Message - From: "Sam Ruby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [...] > Just curious, do you also do this for the perhaps most basic of build tools > of them all: javac? I have answered this question about our shop. > Or are you like most of us and when you install a new patch level of the > J

Re: Speaking of deprecation...

Diane Holt wrote: > >> I typically have at least 8 projects checked out at a time, >> including 3 versions of tomcat, and I already have 2 versions >> of ant installed. > > A-ha -- here's the essential difference between the way you do things vs. > the way I do them. I never have build tools instal

Re: Speaking of deprecation...

- Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [...] > I never thought of checking in GCC and bash or gnumake with a project. > I allways assumed the build tools as separated - I may use netbeans or > eclipse which may have ant integrated. You are not delivering a build to end users made w

Re: Speaking of deprecation...

On Sat, 9 Feb 2002, Diane Holt wrote: > --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > I typically have at least 8 projects checked out at a time, > > including 3 versions of tomcat, and I already have 2 versions > > of ant installed. > > A-ha -- here's the essential difference between the way you do things vs.

Re: Speaking of deprecation...

--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I typically have at least 8 projects checked out at a time, > including 3 versions of tomcat, and I already have 2 versions > of ant installed. A-ha -- here's the essential difference between the way you do things vs. the way I do them. I never have build tools insta

Re: Speaking of deprecation...

Magesh Umasankar wrote: From: "Conor MacNeill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> But maybe we can add a -deprecated to Ant to be javac like. What about if deprecation warnings were a different message level, something like Project.MSG_DEPRECATED, perhaps between INFO and VERBOSE. A command line option to show

Re: Speaking of deprecation...

- Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Ant Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, February 09, 2002 9:46 PM Subject: Re: Speaking of deprecation... > On Sat, 9 Feb 2002, Erik Hatcher wrote: > > > > I DON'T WANT TO UPGR

Re: Speaking of deprecation...

On Sat, 9 Feb 2002, Erik Hatcher wrote: > Well, if companies were losing money because their websites were > inaccessible to the majority of their (potential) customers then they would > downgrade their HTML to accomodate. Apparently its not too much of an issue > because rest of the world has up

Re: Speaking of deprecation...

- Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > There are a lot of inconsistencies and cruft in make - yet all versions > of gnumake do their best to support all of those, and it seems all > those developers believe that respecting a defacto standard is more > important and worthier goal

Re: Speaking of deprecation...

- Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Ant Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, February 09, 2002 7:13 PM Subject: Re: Speaking of deprecation... > - same for java - most programs that work on JDK1.1 will still work ( even > witho

Re: Speaking of deprecation...

I'll give a suggestion, whether or not it is followed is another matter. Keep the discussion on specifics items proposed to be removed. Remember: 100% backwards compatibity, taken literally, means no bug fixes. If someone has a specific item they want to propose to be removed, and there is no kno

Re: Speaking of deprecation...

- Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > I think you confuse things. You can't write a page full of crap that will > work on any browser, but if you stick to the basic HTML - you certainly Of course I can, I can probably find a Netscape vx.x where each tag in the page is appende

Re: Speaking of deprecation...

On Sat, 9 Feb 2002, Erik Hatcher wrote: > > I DON'T WANT TO UPGRADE THE BUILDFILE, and certainly not to be forced > > to do that. > > So, don't upgrade your version of Ant then. But another project I depend on will. And probably another developer will have the newer version of ant installed. I t

Re: Speaking of deprecation...

On Sun, 10 Feb 2002 01:31, Jose Alberto Fernandez wrote: > Talking about replication, is it there a way to find out if a method or > class is deprecated by using reflection? Nope - it is available via the byte code. > Could our Introspection code do the same and provide remove the burden from > t

Re: Speaking of deprecation...

On Sat, 9 Feb 2002, Stephane Bailliez wrote: > > - you can write a html page that displays in netscape2.0. People don't > > have to upgrade their pages every for every new browser. > > Don't exagerate, HTML is certainly not the example. > You'd better not put any presentation in your damn html pag

Re: Speaking of deprecation...

From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > On Sat, 9 Feb 2002, Jose Alberto Fernandez wrote: > > > I think we are loosing sight of why the deprecation message is there. > > > > IT IS THERE TO MAKE YOU UPGRADE YOUR BUILDFILE > > > > If people dislike the message, the easiest way to remove it is to FIX YOUR

Re: Speaking of deprecation...

Costin - to much extent I have been with you on your backwards compatibility comments. But I'm going to play devil's advocate here - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > I DON'T WANT TO UPGRADE THE BUILDFILE, and certainly not to be forced > to do that. So, don't upgrade y

Re: Speaking of deprecation...

- Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > - you can write a html page that displays in netscape2.0. People don't > have to upgrade their pages every for every new browser. Don't exagerate, HTML is certainly not the example. You'd better not put any presentation in your damn html

Re: Speaking of deprecation...

On Sat, 9 Feb 2002, Jose Alberto Fernandez wrote: > > What about if deprecation warnings were a different message level, > > something like Project.MSG_DEPRECATED, perhaps between INFO and VERBOSE. > > A command line option to show them or not would be possible and we could > > print a summary at

Re: Speaking of deprecation...

On Fri, 8 Feb 2002, Steve Loughran wrote: > > > Fortunately I think I rarely use deprecated methods/class since a > > > sophisticated IDE usually identify this during auto-completion. > > > > > > But maybe we can add a -deprecated to Ant to be javac like. > > > > > > > What about if deprecation wa

Re: Speaking of deprecation...

On Sat, 9 Feb 2002, Conor MacNeill wrote: > Stephane Bailliez wrote: > > > - Original Message - > > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > >>I really _hate_ the 'deprecated' message in ant. Especially when it's > >> > > > > I hate also the deprecated message in the java compiler but it is here to

Re: Speaking of deprecation...

- Original Message - From: "Magesh Umasankar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [...] > That wasn't the point. What I wanted to say > was this had been rejected earlier - that is all. Ok, then I change my mind and I reject it again since you don't want me to change. :-) Stephane -- To unsubscribe, e

Re: Speaking of deprecation...

From: "Stephane Bailliez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Frankly, who would ever have the idea of > having a to turn on deprecation if there > is no message to say so. > > That was my '-1'. > > I don't see any mention about this summary, > I did not even think about expressing it > (don't ask me why)

Re: Speaking of deprecation...

--- Jose Alberto Fernandez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think we are loosing sight of why the deprecation message is there. > > IT IS THERE TO MAKE YOU UPGRADE YOUR BUILDFILE Which begs the question: Why do we want people to upgrade their buildfile? If we're never going to actually get rid

Re: Speaking of deprecation...

- Original Message - From: "Jose Alberto Fernandez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Talking about replication, is it there a way to find out if a method or class is deprecated by using reflection? Note that I know of via reflection but the info is available in the bytecode. http://java.sun.com/docs

Re: Speaking of deprecation...

From: "Conor MacNeill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Stephane Bailliez wrote: > > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > But maybe we can add a -deprecated to Ant to be javac like. > > > > What about if deprecation warnings were a different message level, > something like Project.MSG_DEPRECATED, perhaps be

Re: Speaking of deprecation...

- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Ant Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Stephane Bailliez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, February 08, 2002 7:53 PM Subject: Re: Speaking of deprecation... > On Fri, 8 Feb 2002, Stephane Bailliez wrote: > > >

Re: Speaking of deprecation...

- Original Message - From: "Magesh Umasankar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [...] > Have you changed your mind now, Stephane. Just kidding ;-) All ideas depends on the right timing, the way to introduce them as well as cross-fertilization of others. The world is full of 'new ideas' that are 'old id

Re: Speaking of deprecation...

- Original Message - From: "Conor MacNeill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Ant Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, February 08, 2002 4:17 PM Subject: Re: Speaking of deprecation... > Stephane Bailliez wrote: > > > - Origin

Re: Speaking of deprecation...

From: "Stephane Bailliez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > From: "Conor MacNeill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > [...] > > What about if deprecation warnings were a different message level, > > something like Project.MSG_DEPRECATED, perhaps between INFO and VERBOSE. > > A command line option to show them or not would

Re: Speaking of deprecation...

From: "Conor MacNeill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > But maybe we can add a -deprecated to Ant to be javac like. > > > > What about if deprecation warnings were a different message level, > something like Project.MSG_DEPRECATED, perhaps between INFO and VERBOSE. > A command line option to show

Re: Speaking of deprecation...

- Original Message - From: "Conor MacNeill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [...] > What about if deprecation warnings were a different message level, > something like Project.MSG_DEPRECATED, perhaps between INFO and VERBOSE. > A command line option to show them or not would be possible and we could >

Re: Speaking of deprecation...

Stephane Bailliez wrote: - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I really _hate_ the 'deprecated' message in ant. Especially when it's I hate also the deprecated message in the java compiler but it is here to remind me something. Fortunately I think I rarely use deprecated methods/cl

RE: Speaking of deprecation...

--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [ and wrote and wrote... :) ] Okay, okay -- I'll put the old cruft back in, sheesh! Personally, I disagree with the once-it's-in-there-we're-stuck-with-it-for-life philosophy, but it's far too nice of a day outside to get into a debate. Diane = ([EMAIL PROTECTE

Re: Speaking of deprecation...

On Fri, 8 Feb 2002, Stephane Bailliez wrote: > > good reasons, like 'we prefer a different name for this > > attribute' ), they should remain in the documentation > > with the 'deprecated' mark and maybe a justification > > for the reason it was deprecated and who made the decision > > and when. >

Re: Speaking of deprecation...

- Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [...] > Removing a feature from documentation is IMHO even worse than > removing it from the code - while I can accept that some > features were 'bad' and shouldn't be supported ( for very > good reasons, like 'we prefer a different name for t

Re: Speaking of deprecation...

At 12:11 PM 2/5/2002 -0800, Diane Holt wrote: --- Magesh Umasankar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If it has been more than 2 releases old, then +1 to chuck it away from > documents. CVS log for jakarta-ant/src/main/org/apache/tools/ant/taskdefs/Delete.java [snip] ---

RE: Speaking of deprecation...

On Thu, 7 Feb 2002, Magesh Umasankar wrote: > > I agree with Bruce. Documentation should reflect > > the code. If a feature is in the code, it should > > be in the documentation. If a feature is deprecated > > in the code, it should be marked as deprecated in > > the documentation but it should

Re: Speaking of deprecation...

On Fri, 8 Feb 2002, Stephane Bailliez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> From: Stefan Bodewig [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> On Fri, 8 Feb 2002, Stephane Bailliez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> > Yep, some found this stylesheet too risky to be put in the >> > documentation. :-) >> >> Maybe we shou

RE: Speaking of deprecation...

> -Original Message- > From: Stefan Bodewig [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Fri, 8 Feb 2002, Stephane Bailliez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Yep, some found this stylesheet too risky to be put in the > > documentation. :-) > > Maybe we should cover it with testcases, doesn't seem to b

Re: Speaking of deprecation...

On Fri, 8 Feb 2002, Stephane Bailliez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Yep, some found this stylesheet too risky to be put in the > documentation. :-) Maybe we should cover it with testcases, doesn't seem to be too difficult. Also, it doesn't cover all things that have ever been deprecated (yet?),

RE: Speaking of deprecation...

At 22:04 7/02/2002 -0500, Magesh Umasankar wrote: > I agree with Bruce. Documentation should reflect > the code. If a feature is in the code, it should > be in the documentation. If a feature is deprecated > in the code, it should be marked as deprecated in > the documentation but it should still

RE: Speaking of deprecation...

From: "Conor MacNeill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > I think you missed Bruce's point. Consider this scenario: > > You are given a build file. It uses some deprecated > features. You are asked to bring it up to date. If > the documentation doesn't specify what the deprecated > features do, how can yo

Re: Speaking of deprecation...

- Original Message - From: "Bruce Atherton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [...] > >You use ant-update.xsl and you're done in 10 seconds :-] > > Huh? > > Oh, right. A feature that isn't documented. Or has it been deprecated? &^) > Yep, some found this stylesheet too risky to be put in the documentat

Re: Speaking of deprecation...

At 01:09 AM 2/8/2002 +0100, Stephane Bailliez wrote: From: "Conor MacNeill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > You are given a build file. It uses some deprecated features. You are asked > to bring it up to date. If the documentation doesn't specify what the > deprecated features do, how can you confidently mak

Re: Speaking of deprecation...

- Original Message - From: "Conor MacNeill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Magesh, > > I think you missed Bruce's point. Consider this scenario: > > You are given a build file. It uses some deprecated features. You are asked > to bring it up to date. If the documentation doesn't specify what the >

RE: Speaking of deprecation...

Magesh Umasankar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, 8 February 2002 11:05 AM > To: Ant Developers List > Subject: Re: Speaking of deprecation... > > > From: "Bruce Atherton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > And forcing someone to build a system that > > u

Re: Speaking of deprecation...

- Original Message - From: "Bruce Atherton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > At 11:44 AM 2/5/2002 -0800, Diane Holt wrote: [...] > So why not have the documentation match the program as much as possible? > Document deprecation, and remove documentation for removed features. I would say, keep the me

Re: Speaking of deprecation...

From: "Bruce Atherton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > And forcing someone to build a system that > uses a feature in order to find out that > feature is deprecated strikes me as badness. That is the general idea, I think - to make it as tough to use deprecated attributes/tasks as possible :-) > > Then

Re: Speaking of deprecation...

At 11:44 AM 2/5/2002 -0800, Diane Holt wrote: To clean up old cruft. I just don't see any need to keep including in the documentation stuff that we don't want people using anyway. Is there any harm in documenting it as deprecated, and then removing it altogether once the feature is actually remove

Re: [OT] Re: Speaking of deprecation...

what have I done? ;-) Thanks, I really like this one: > when that person has had too much to drink. He/she is no longer > being served. 86 refers to article 86 of the New York State Liquor > laws maybe they should employ during the next six days in the German Rhine area (time of Karneval again)

Re: [OT] Re: Speaking of deprecation...

Diane Holt wrote: > > I always thought it came from a code-number for bussing a table -- but > American Heritage seems to have another idea about it: There are more than a few theories on this... see http://www.restaurantreport.com/qa/86d.html and http://www.word-detective.com/back-i2.html Here's

[OT] Re: Speaking of deprecation...

--- Sam Ruby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Stefan Bodewig wrote: > > > > +1 - if you explain the "86" to a poor German who doesn't get it ;-) > > To "86" something means to remove it from the menu. While the origin of > the term is unclear, many attribute it to restaurants where it became > known

Re: Speaking of deprecation...

Stefan Bodewig wrote: > > +1 - if you explain the "86" to a poor German who doesn't get it ;-) To "86" something means to remove it from the menu. While the origin of the term is unclear, many attribute it to restaurants where it became known as "the item on the menu that we don't have". - Sam R

Re: Speaking of deprecation...

On Tue, 5 Feb 2002, Diane Holt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > can I 86 'em? +1 - if you explain the "86" to a poor German who doesn't get it ;-) Stefan -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: For additional commands, e-mail:

Re: Speaking of deprecation...

On Tue, 5 Feb 2002, Magesh Umasankar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Otherwise, I would prefer they stay > because a user transitioning, say, from > Ant 1.4 to 1.6 should be able to see > the deprecation warning before we pull > it off altogether. "see the deprecation warning" is not related to rem

Re: Speaking of deprecation...

From: "Diane Holt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > --- Magesh Umasankar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > If it has been more than 2 releases old, then +1 to chuck it away from > > documents. > > CVS log for jakarta-ant/src/main/org/apache/tools/ant/taskdefs/Delete.java > > [snip] >

Re: Speaking of deprecation...

From: "Peter Donald" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > If it has been more than 2 releases old, > > then +1 to chuck it away from documents. > > Otherwise, I would prefer they stay > > because a user transitioning, say, from > > Ant 1.4 to 1.6 should be able to see > > the deprecation warning before we

Re: Speaking of deprecation...

On Wed, 6 Feb 2002 06:55, Magesh Umasankar wrote: > From: "Diane Holt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > What is the motivation for this? > > > > To clean up old cruft. I just don't see > > any need to keep including in the > > documentation stuff that we don't want > > people using anyway. (And besides

Re: Speaking of deprecation...

--- Magesh Umasankar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If it has been more than 2 releases old, then +1 to chuck it away from > documents. CVS log for jakarta-ant/src/main/org/apache/tools/ant/taskdefs/Delete.java [snip] -- Revisi

Re: Speaking of deprecation...

From: "Diane Holt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > What is the motivation for this? > > To clean up old cruft. I just don't see > any need to keep including in the > documentation stuff that we don't want > people using anyway. (And besides which, > I have this tendency [okay, call it a > compulsion

Re: Speaking of deprecation...

> What is the motivation for this? To clean up old cruft. I just don't see any need to keep including in the documentation stuff that we don't want people using anyway. (And besides which, I have this tendency [okay, call it a compulsion :)] to fix up any text that's in front of me, so I end up re

Re: Speaking of deprecation...

- Original Message - From: "Diane Holt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Ant Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2002 11:07 Subject: Speaking of deprecation... > While I'm updating the Delete task description file... what&

Re: Speaking of deprecation...

From: "Diane Holt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > While I'm updating the Delete task > description file... Thank you for taking it up. > what's the current consensus wrt > deprecated attributes being documented? > Are we keeping them in? I'd just as > soon see them gone, but I know several > people

Re: Speaking of deprecation...

Diane Holt wrote: > > While I'm updating the Delete task description file... what's the current > consensus wrt deprecated attributes being documented? Are we keeping them > in? I'd just as soon see them gone, but I know several people are twitchy > about removing anything (ever :) There's a whole

Speaking of deprecation...

While I'm updating the Delete task description file... what's the current consensus wrt deprecated attributes being documented? Are we keeping them in? I'd just as soon see them gone, but I know several people are twitchy about removing anything (ever :) There's a whole block of deprecated attrs a