Sam Ruby wrote: > > Federico Barbieri wrote: > > > > > kewl - keep it coming. A lot of the duplicity stuff in Avalon though > > > is done to support backwards compatability in some form or another. > > > > > > > I know and that's the main pain! I don't want to repackage and > > rearchitect everything nicely and screw all code. But deprecation in > > this situation is such a pain! So we could go for a 4.0 proposal while > > tuning the 3.1x branch. > > There is no harm in removing interfaces that nobody uses. Helping people > convert, though patches, benefits everyone. >
I just don't want to deprecate classes without a very clear picture of the whole 4.0. If you have a need today and you think of a solution, implement it and deprecate the old class you'll end up in a ever evolving/ never stable development process. So IMHO the best path is to freze as much as possible 3.1 specification brach, face all issues in a coherent way on the 4.0 proposal, where you have freedom of movement and you can work on solutions instead of patches.
