On Jan 3, 2011, at 9:34 AM, Henrik Johansen wrote:
> Sounds good to me, to me there's a missing when/why description though:
> Which criterias do we use for when deprecating is warranted?
> - # of callers in image required to deprecate planned for removal (0?)
> - # of callers / age when considering renaming for clarity (low
> number of callers and/or age < X years?)
> - new/better API available (always, as long as new place documented?)
>
> As for the how, since we do have an integration process, would it not
> also be desirable with some sort of integration lint tool working on slices?
yes now I do not time for that... :(
> For deprecations, it could do things like:
> - Checking for method removals without corresponding method additions in
> a slice aimed at recategorization (happened quite a few times...)
YES!
> - Deprecations rather than removals of non-private methods
This is true that having something more automatic would be good. In fact I
would like to have the rbengine available all the time.
but even if I said that I did not make any progress on using metacello to
manage core/dev....
Stef
>
> Cheers,
> Henry
>
> Den 01.01.2011 12:35, skrev Stéphane Ducasse:
>> I took 5 min and wrote down that
>> http://code.google.com/p/pharo/wiki/DeprecationProcess
>>
>> comment if you want.
>>
>>
>
