Am Mittwoch, den 22.08.2007, 16:15 -0400 schrieb Tres Seaver: > > I eventually came to the conclusion that our original conclusion was > > sound, but that we should only introduce backward incompatibilities > > when the need is very dire, as it will cause lots of pain.
+1 from me as well. > +1. Cleanliness is not a good enough reason to break a public API, > for instance. If necessary, the incompatible stuff might be better > off moving to a new package / API name altogether, with the old name > left as a pure compatibility shim (perhaps wich "evergreen" deprecation > warnings). By that you mean that we put deprecation warnings in place and tell people where to find the new stuff without the time-pressure notices like "will go away when you don't look"? :) _______________________________________________ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
