On Friday 05 March 2010 15:14:33 Ryan Hill wrote: > On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 13:12:36 +0200 Petteri Räty wrote: > > Because there is so little benefit from removing old functions. What is > > so bad about having them grouped at the bottom of the file inside a > > deprecated section? > > Because then people use them. Don't ask me why. I have things I > deprecated over two years ago still being used by a dozen ebuilds bumped > within the last three months. You should be familiar with this behaviour > wrt. > built_with_use. So, when I'm making changes I still have to maintain the > deprecated stuff. > > If I really want to get rid of it, then I have to break it. Replace the > whole thing with a eerror like any of our deprecated eclasses. At that > point, I would rather just remove the function or eclass than curate a > museum of dead interfaces. But I suppose that's a personal quirk -- I > hate having old unused code around.
indeed ... and to take it further, ive seen devs inclined to leave ebuilds alone even after they were told point blank the funcs were deprecated and going away. -mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
