vinc...@massol.net wrote: >> wonder if this could not be better controlled so that installers can >> > actively get rid of the legacy. > > Our current strategy has been to keep legacy forever, see: > http://dev.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Community/DevelopmentPractices#HBackwardCompatibility > > Our idea was to start not bundling legacy jars by default but we need the EM > to support legacy jars first as otherwise users will see breakages when they > install extensions requiring legacy APIs. > > Do you have a different idea? Yes, I meant that legacy jars should give the feeling that one should get rid of them. Marking them with "legacy of version 5.3" (which would mean something such as "abandadonned at 5.3" would let the installers be aware that the software they run still needs legacy that is maybe 2 years old.
paul _______________________________________________ devs mailing list devs@xwiki.org http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
