Github user asfgit closed the pull request at:
https://github.com/apache/metamodel/pull/101
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is e
Github user kaspersorensen commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/metamodel/pull/101#issuecomment-220467674
Aha yes... Let's ask that.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does
Github user hsaputra commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/metamodel/pull/101#issuecomment-220444511
Ah I am so sorry, I need more dose on caffeine =(
I apologize for the confusion.
What I meant was, would anyone in 4.0 still need it to be around for 5.0.
Github user kaspersorensen commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/metamodel/pull/101#issuecomment-220440238
I'm not sure I understand what you mean Henry? 5.0 isn't out yet so I guess
no one will be depending on it yet?
---
If your project is set up for it, you can
Github user hsaputra commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/metamodel/pull/101#issuecomment-220419180
Maybe we should do shout out to dev@ list to check if anyone still in 5.0
and ok to add this breaking API changes?
---
If your project is set up for it, you can rep
Github user hsaputra commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/metamodel/pull/101#issuecomment-220359472
The only worry I have is that this change introduce API changes that could
break compilation for minor release
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply t
Github user kaspersorensen commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/metamodel/pull/101#issuecomment-220359817
I agree Henry, that's why I wanted to put it on the 5.0 branch so that the
expectation is also managed a bit :-)
---
If your project is set up for it, you can
Github user LosD commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/metamodel/pull/101#issuecomment-220357842
Half a year is probably reasonable when we don't have an official policy
about keeping depreciations for a certain amount of time.
---
If your project is set up for it
Github user kaspersorensen commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/metamodel/pull/101#issuecomment-220355905
The most recent deprecations where introduced in MM 4.4 AFAIK. Those where
related to the split of FunctionType into AggregateFunction and ScalarFunction
inter
Github user LosD commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/metamodel/pull/101#issuecomment-220263114
Are all the deprecations old-ish? It might be a major release, but if we
can avoid throwing out stuff that has been deprecated only a few months ago, it
would be best.
Github user kaspersorensen commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/metamodel/pull/101#issuecomment-220177537
We could do it in master, but I guess it seems nicer to only do that sort
of thing when it aligns on a bigger release.
---
If your project is set up for it, y
Github user hsaputra commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/metamodel/pull/101#issuecomment-220154242
@kaspersorensen just wondering we want to remove the deprecated methods in
5.x branch?
Shouldn't we just do it in master?
---
If your project is set up for it,
GitHub user kaspersorensen opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/metamodel/pull/101
Removed all deprecated API from MetaModel (ah)
This is a PR for the 5.x branch. I suggest getting rid of all the
deprecated methods of metamodel for that release.
You can merge this p
13 matches
Mail list logo
