> On Wed, 12 Mar 2003 07:37, Berin Loritsch wrote: > > Peter Donald wrote: > > > On Wed, 12 Mar 2003 01:16, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > >> Log: > > >> all these packages are merged into compatibility or replaced by > > >> lifecycle > > > > > > -1 on cli and io being removed as free standing projects. There is no > > > justification for doing so and they worked fine as they were > > > previously. Why break something that worked and add extra cruft into > > > dependency trees of projects that don't need that cruft? > > ... > > From a simple management viewpoint, it is easier to track deprecated > code if it is all encapsulated in one JAR.
disagree. I think it is much easier to see what is deprecated by the deprecated messages that go by when compiling. Then I can gradually move away from the deprecated jars as needed. -- Cheers, Peter Donald ---------------------------------------------------------------- Fools ignore complexity. Pragmatists suffer it. Some can avoid it. Geniuses remove it. -- Perlis's Programming Proverb #58, SIGPLAN Notices, Sept. 1982 ---------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
