On Wed, 6 Feb 2002 06:55, Magesh Umasankar wrote: > From: "Diane Holt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > What is the motivation for this? > > > > To clean up old cruft. I just don't see > > any need to keep including in the > > documentation stuff that we don't want > > people using anyway. (And besides which, > > I have this tendency [okay, call it a > > compulsion :)] to fix up any text that's > > in front of me, so I end up reading and > > editing old junk -- until it hits me that > > I'm putting energy into something I don't > > really need to be putting it into.) > > If it has been more than 2 releases old, > then +1 to chuck it away from documents. > Otherwise, I would prefer they stay > because a user transitioning, say, from > Ant 1.4 to 1.6 should be able to see > the deprecation warning before we pull > it off altogether.
Not sure I follow. I think Diane is saying we narf documentation for deprecated attributes/elements. So that deprecated attributes can stay around forever and will issue warnings when used. ie DEPRECATED: Attribute foo deprecated, use bar instead. So I would be +1 on removing docs, -1 on removing underlying method. > > Would this be acceptable as a document > deprecation/removal process policy? > > > Diane > > Cheers, > Magesh > > *********************************************** > * Yawn: The only time some married men ever * > * get to open their mouth. * > *********************************************** -- Cheers, Pete The avalanche has already started. It is too late for the pebbles to vote. -Ambassador Kosh -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
