Sam Ruby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Pete knew I'd be doing it and in this case, I think it's >> no real problem. > > I'm broken.
No, you are not. Sorry if anything I said suggests that. > How do we fix the process so that items like this are noticed and > addressed earlier? Don't know, really. One of the problems with the tinderbox approach is that you always include experimental changes that may very well go away again. My take on this is that every project that relies on alpha features of another project is responsible to track changes in that alpha version itself. Well, this is easier to say than to do, I know. Especially when talking about projects that still don't have a single released version ... > Or that deprecated features are not removed until users who are > dependent on that feature have made the change? Using GUMP (is the capitalization correct?) to find users of deprecated features will help, but what about the projects the system doesn't track? I think there must always be an extended deprecation period before a feature can be removed - but it's kind of difficult to decide how long would be long enough. Stefan
