This I think is the best idea for this problem. My vote is for this.

Kartik Thakore

On 2010-06-18, at 2:34 AM, Christoph Otto <[email protected]> wrote:

On 06/17/2010 08:26 PM, Tyler Curtis wrote:
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 8:55 PM, Andrew Whitworth<[email protected] > wrote:
These are very good criticisms, and important for us to hear. By the
letter of the deprecation policy, a deprecation notice for the removed ops was added in a supported release, but that notice was cryptic and
vague.

To sort of enumerate some conflicting problems we have:

1) We need to be able to deprecate things. There are a lot of parts of parrot (though the number is shrinking every month) that not good for
Parrot or it's users in general and need to be modified/removed. Out
with the old, in with the new, etc.
2) Some issues aren't so pressing, but a few issues do need rapid
turnaround because people (especially Rakudo) end up waiting on
changes so they can make progress.
3) Other people, such as yourself, like things to move a little bit
slower so you don't get the rug pulled out from under you.

The current prevailing wisdom is that your project should not track
SVN HEAD. Instead, you should pick a stable release and track that
until you are ready to upgrade. So, my immediate suggestion is that
you pick a good stable supported release (2.3, and eventually 2.6) to
base your work against. Obviously, if you're following the
bleeding-edge development repository you're going to have to deal with
the hassles associated with that.

The root issue is that we probably need to put more thought into our
deprecation notices. A good notice or linked ticket should, to my
mind, include:
1) Detail about what exactly is changing or disappearing
2) Detail about how to work around the changes, and where to go for
help if the given workarounds don't do it
3) Information about the immediacy of the deprecation (important to do
quickly vs can take some time if necessary)

We should probably also have a place where wayward developers can find
 a listing of all recent deprecation notices, so when something does
change people don't have to search too hard to find the information
they need.

Thoughts?

--Andrew Whitworth



On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 9:22 PM, Kartik Thakore
<[email protected]>  wrote:
Hello folks,

So after taking a bit of a break from hacking I was back to try the
brand spanking new Parrot. Most of all I wanted to see how it worked
with my naive attempt at parrotSDL
(http://github.com/kthakore/parrotSDL). parrotSDL is an attempt to bind the SDL (http://libsdl.org) library to parrot using NCI. It would bring
simple multimedia (think games) functionality to parrot.

When I first started parrotSDL a few months ago I was excited with the promise of learning a really cool new language and platform. I had often wondered why no one else has done this yet; or for that matter any other bindings. Surely it couldn't have been that hard. For me the SDL pir sources
was already in the parrot trunk, just not working.

In hindsight that should have been my hint or rather a warning bell. Anyway, I quickly fixed a bunch of minor bugs and release them against the latest parrot trunk. The last commit was on February 25, 2010. A mere 5 months ago. And now parrotSDL is completely unusable now. The cause which seems completely ridiculous (printerr, cmod, .. etc now expects a ( ) around the
string after it) to me as an end user.

I have no doubt that there must be a good reason for this change in
syntax. But I digress, as an end user this is very disappointing. If a
library written in parrot is obsolete in 5 months ... what is the
point?

Moreover there is hardly a notice of what has been deprecated, so now I
have to walk through svn logs, or hunt in varying places. And most
annoying of all the docs provided by parrot are either obsolete or just
too short.

For me right now I really would like to push forward with parrotSDL, but I feel as if parrot was made by core developers for core developers. Which is fine, but I really hope that was not the only point of this.

Regards,
Kartik Thakore

> Something that could be helpful is a mailing list specifically for
> deprecations. Every modification to DEPRECATED.pod could either
> automatically or manually as a required part of the deprecation
> process be posted to the list, and when the deprecated feature was
> finally removed, a precise description of what has been removed, what
> the new way of doing it is, and how to migrate existing code to use
> the new way. So, someone developing on top of Parrot could subscribe
> to the list, and whenever a deprecated feature is removed, they could
> quickly use the included instructions in the message to the list to
> check whether they need to update their code and how to do so. Of
> course, the deprecation wiki page would also work, if it was kept
> updated. Really, the most important thing would be to have some
> handling of this aspect of the deprecation process, whatever that
> handling may be, specified and followed.
>

I'd like to see more methodical way of dealing with compatibility breaks than a mailing list that users need to troll through. Drupal does a good job of this with its module updating guides[1]. For each major version transition, they maintain a list of the API changes along with what's necessary to migrate code from one version to the next. It's not perfect and the lists are huge, but it gives Drupal module writers a good idea of what's required to upgrade without all the nasty surprises that have been biting users of Parrot. Unless we want strict ABI compatibility (and we don't), there will be an upgrade tax. The next best option for Parrot users is to make that tax discoverable.

To that end, I propose that the current Deprecation wiki page be used as an index similar to Drupal's [1]. I also propose that we not consider any further deprecations eligible for trunk until there's a page on wiki describing the change and what Parrot users need to do to update their code. This would be in addition to the current deprecation policy, i.e. the change must be eligible *and* documented before it could be committed to trunk.

If this sounds like a good idea, I'm happy to get the wiki page organized, write some example pages and otherwise take the lead in making sure that this policy is documented and followed.

I want Parrot to be a great platform for HLL and library development, but this is an area where we've been falling short.

Christoph


[1] http://drupal.org/update/modules
_______________________________________________
http://lists.parrot.org/mailman/listinfo/parrot-dev
_______________________________________________
http://lists.parrot.org/mailman/listinfo/parrot-dev

Reply via email to