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 guaranteeĀ 
> 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

Reply via email to