Yes, I actually think that setting an announced date for taking away deprecated features is a good idea Mikhail. IMHO, dead code also creates some risk.
On 11/3/06, Mikhail Fursov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 11/3/06, Geir Magnusson Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > From that argument, I'm now against dropping GCv4, if you actually get > use out of it for verification of threading or other important issues. > > Yes, you can always take older revisions, but that's a pain, and if that > is a "speedbump" that prevents you from doing those extra tests or > verifications, I'd rather keep it around as a convenience for you. :) > > Seriously - if you need it, lets keep it. > I have an idea: The is an incubation process to accept new projects to Apache. Why not to introduce something like "farewell" process in Harmony that is "reversed incubation" :) ? So the idea is: we all agree that ComponentX is out of date and we should drop it. We can announce that we will drop it in a N months. This will be a signal for everyone to remove any dependencies (like we have today for GCv4) in other components during this period. If it is OK we can say that we drop GCv4 in 01/2007 and leave it in the trunk without additional support today . -- Mikhail Fursov
