From: "Ken Wood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > I agree with number 3. When I started getting deprecation warnings > for my use of "rename", I was most pleased with the fact that > the warning not only told me that rename was deprecated, but it > also show what task and options to use to replace it. So I took > a few minutes to edit my build.xml, and moved on with my life.
You said the answer yourself. When you upgraded from say, Ant 1.2 to Ant 1.3, you got this warning and you were most pleased. Imagine a user upgrading to Ant 1.5 from 1.1. She wouldn't have got a single deprecation warning. The mechanism of going about implementing Item 3 is what we are addressing, I think. That is, the proposed mechanism would *recognize* that Ant 1.5 no longer has <rename>, not work, and tell her that, instead of acting as if <rename> is something new. In other words, I think, removal of deprecated stuff doesn't mean removal of *code* in most cases. It just means making it unusable in a gracious way (by providing lots of How to Convert type messages). And you know fully well why the legacy flag has been proposed... :-) Cheers, Magesh -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
