Martijn Faassen wrote at 2008-12-19 22:18 +0100:
>
>On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 7:50 PM, Dieter Maurer wrote:
>> Martijn Faassen wrote at 2008-12-18 16:27 +0100:
>>> ...
>>>You should, and likely are, shipping your package with a recommended
>>>list of versions.
>>
>> Apparently, "grok" was force
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Martijn Faassen wrote:
For the case of *library* packges, rather than platforms, forcing users
into lockstep on dependencies is less desirable.
Example
-
Assume that developer Fred releases a given library distribution,
'foo-1.2.tar.gz',
Hey,
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 7:50 PM, Dieter Maurer wrote:
> Martijn Faassen wrote at 2008-12-18 16:27 +0100:
>> ...
>>You should, and likely are, shipping your package with a recommended
>>list of versions.
>
> Apparently, "grok" was forced to go this route.
> But, in principle, this is undesira
Martijn Faassen wrote at 2008-12-18 16:27 +0100:
> ...
>You should, and likely are, shipping your package with a recommended
>list of versions.
Apparently, "grok" was forced to go this route.
But, in principle, this is undesirable.
Most of my components work with a wide version range of other
co
Fred Drake wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 6:36 PM, Tres Seaver wrote:
>> If we just leave the name importable from the old location, what is
>> hurt? The major downside is that people won't learn about the new
>> location. I consider this to be less an issue than the two problems I
>> outline
Hey,
Tres Seaver wrote:
[snip]
> I take cleaning up deprecation warnings seriously: I want all tests for
> my packages, for instance, to run without emitting *any* of them.
> Deprecation warnings have a non-trivial downside: consider the case
> wher one of *my* downstream users updates Roger's
On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 6:36 PM, Tres Seaver wrote:
> If we just leave the name importable from the old location, what is
> hurt? The major downside is that people won't learn about the new
> location. I consider this to be less an issue than the two problems I
> outline above.
Agreed. Moving
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Martijn Faassen wrote:
> Marius Gedminas wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 03:45:01PM -0500, Tres Seaver wrote:
> [why would we ever want to avoid giving deprecation warnings?]
>>> One issue is that adding deprecation messages for importing symbols fro
On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 8:31 AM, Martijn Faassen wrote:
> If we can get PendingDeprecationWarning working, people like Roger can
> keep refactoring without bothering too many people and still get the
> deprecation warnings they want to see. Then at some stage when a new
> release of a framework (Z
Marius Gedminas wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 03:45:01PM -0500, Tres Seaver wrote:
[why would we ever want to avoid giving deprecation warnings?]
>> One issue is that adding deprecation messages for importing symbols from
>> the old makes all "downstream" code add ugly BBB warts in order to
>> s
On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 03:45:01PM -0500, Tres Seaver wrote:
> Martijn Faassen wrote:
> > Christian Zagrodnick wrote:
> > [snip]
> >> Nope. http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope3-dev/2007-August/023223.html
> >
> > Weird. At first glance I do not understand the context of that decision.
> > There
On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 03:45:01PM -0500, Tres Seaver wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Martijn Faassen wrote:
> > Christian Zagrodnick wrote:
> > [snip]
> >> Nope. http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope3-dev/2007-August/023223.html
> >
> > Weird. At first glance I do not
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Martijn Faassen wrote:
> Christian Zagrodnick wrote:
> [snip]
>> Nope. http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope3-dev/2007-August/023223.html
>
> Weird. At first glance I do not understand the context of that decision.
> There was a decision to "avoid de
Christian Zagrodnick wrote:
[snip]
> Nope. http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope3-dev/2007-August/023223.html
Weird. At first glance I do not understand the context of that decision.
There was a decision to "avoid deprecation" made by it doesn't seem to
be motivated in the discussion:
"- zope.a
On 2008-12-15 13:44:43 +0100, "Roger Ineichen" said:
> Hi Christian
>
>> Betreff: [Zope-dev] Deprecate ITerms in zope.app.form? [Re:
>> zope.browser?]
>
> [...]
>
>>>> A deprecation warning isn't bad. But I think we should not
>>
Hi Christian
> Betreff: [Zope-dev] Deprecate ITerms in zope.app.form? [Re:
> zope.browser?]
[...]
> >> A deprecation warning isn't bad. But I think we should not
> deprecate
> >> the use of ITerms from zope.app.form. I don't see a gain
> in this API
On 2008-12-12 16:04:09 +0100, Robert Niederreiter said:
> Hi,
>
> Am Freitag, den 12.12.2008, 15:51 +0100 schrieb Christian Zagrodnick:
>> On 2008-12-12 14:24:09 +0100, Martijn Faassen said:
>>
>>> Hey,
>>>
>>> Christian Zagrodnick wrote:
>>> [snip]
That's good. One thing which is not go
17 matches
Mail list logo
