Jacques Le Roux <jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com> writes: > Let me clarify my position. I'm not strictly against this change. I > don't fear a such OOTB change, after all it's only name change, isn't > ? And what you mentioned below Suraj is the right way to go. Obviously > the concern is for custom projects. > > Though I'm not directly concerned (I have no current direct > responsibilities on custom projects which could be impacted) I can > foresee issues on custom projects even if we provide tests to cover > the change as Rajesh rightly suggested. Because tests can't guarantee > to reveal issues in custom code, so people might overlook when > migrating. We have no ideas of what users do in their project, it can > be surprising sometimes. So I'd like to have more opinions and > especially ideas of people concerned. I'm not sure we will get them in > dev ML. So I think we should ask on user ML. Even if I guess all users > are not reading all messages on user ML, at least we would have done > our best.
It's free software so you never know who is going to be impacted, even if you ask on a user ML. :-) IIUC the question is to know if changing an entity name is an acceptable breaking change and how it should be handled. Is there a way to deprecate the old entity name, while introducing the new one? -- Mathieu Lirzin GPG: F2A3 8D7E EB2B 6640 5761 070D 0ADE E100 9460 4D37