-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Christian Theune wrote: > 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"? :)
Right. I don't think removing public APIs is useful, for the reasons Jim was outlining: the chance of breaking unknown dependents is not worth the cleanup (e.g., zLOG). Tres. - -- =================================================================== Tres Seaver +1 540-429-0999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Palladion Software "Excellence by Design" http://palladion.com -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGzbbF+gerLs4ltQ4RAteVAJ9YixyG+ailwiR+Cio7s/KOL2eQEQCeNc7u wO35gklD3SA2N+OKFYv+/Ws= =fQth -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3-dev@zope.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com