From: "Peter Donald" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > 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. >
What I meant was, +1 on removing it from docs after its been deprecated in docs for 2 releases. User should be able to read the docs and understand what has been deprecated and what will be removed in the next few releases before it goes away altogether. For example, MimeMail now shows up as deprecated in docs and will tell the user to use <mail> instead. If this were removed totally right away, user wouldn't know where mimemail went, for example. I am not talking about the deprecated warning that Ant provides - rather the deprecated tag that appears in html... Hope this clarifies. > Pete Cheers, Magesh ********************************************** * Etc.: A sign to make others believe that * * you know more than you actually do. * ********************************************** -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
