> I prefer to do this type of cleanup *after* a release...this gives plenty
of
> time to find out if something important has been removed by mistake :)
That's a little odd, considering that you then change an API after
it's been finalized by an RTM. I don't know if the methods are marked with
'true' for the parameter in ObsoleteAttribute to signal a compiler error, if
not, you _will_ have people using these methods, no matter what the
attribute says. Making it a 'breaking change' for a final release means
people have to deal with it before they upgrade to 3.0, and not some time
after they've upgraded.
FB
>
> IMO The main focus should be getting 3.0.0 as stable as possible.
>
> Having said that, now is better than never... :)
>
> On Aug 11, 1:42 am, Diego Mijelshon <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Are there any plans to remove members that were obsolete in 2.x?
> >
> > I can create a patch, if it's any help.
> >
> > I know the priority is sub-zero, but obsolete cleanup is one of those
> > things you can only do in major releases.
> >
> > Diego
