Oh, come on... Levente, we all agree with you. Pharo is trying to use that deprecation policy since some months ago... Sometimes people make mistakes (me included) and don't do it, but we agreed that we have to deprecate and remove after two versions of being deprecated.
I'm tired of this stupid arguments. I expect the new year will bring us more doing and less discussing :). 2010/12/31 Levente Uzonyi <[email protected]> > On Fri, 31 Dec 2010, Miguel Cobá wrote: > > El vie, 31-12-2010 a las 20:05 +0100, Levente Uzonyi escribió: >> >>> What you describe here is simply bad practice. One should run the tests >>> before deploying code (besides testing the complete system thoroughly). >>> If you use RFB, you can access the GUI in headless mode. Also when a >>> debugger opens with a deprecation warning, the stack trace is written to >>> the log file, so you will be notified about the problem even when you >>> don't have access to the GUI. >>> >> >> Yeah, sure. But if it a second level dependency (a package I use that >> uses a package that contains popups deprecation warnings) I have big >> chances of being bite by this problem. I concede, this could be avoided >> by test-running every and whatnot package in the image but for a system >> that updates automatically this will bite. >> > > So you're saying that it's better to get a DNU instead of a deprecation > warning with proper description about what and how to update/change? > > > Levente > > > Also, even if I can use RFB or read the image logs, I most likely will >> monitor the application logs and will pass a time without me knowing >> that some part of the application is waiting some user input. >> At the end I expect that the maintainer of the package is the >> *responsible* of test the application for the image I use, and not the >> user of the package. That is what I do with magma on Pharo. I test and >> fix the issues generated by the evolution of Pharo and then I release a >> new ConfigurationOfMagma that the user can use without knowing that n >> deprecations were involved in the upgrade of the package. >> >> >> >>> Anyway, there's no reason to remove a method (especially an API method) >>> without deprecating and keeping it around for a few releases. >>> >>> >> I agree that is better to not forget to mark some method as deprecated >> but, again, I think that this promote the external packages not being >> updated to the current pharo image. >> >> Cheers >> >> -- >> Miguel Cobá >> http://twitter.com/MiguelCobaMtz >> http://miguel.leugim.com.mx >> >> >> >> >>
