Re: [Sugar-devel] Deprecation policy - was: About show-launcher option

2014-01-18 Thread Daniel Narvaez
On 14 January 2014 15:16, Manuel Quiñones ma...@laptop.org wrote: 2014/1/13 Daniel Narvaez dwnarv...@gmail.com: So, to summarize what I'm proposing on top of what Manuel posted * All interfaces which are not prefixed with an underscore are public. Yes, and we should also add the __all__

Re: [Sugar-devel] Deprecation policy - was: About show-launcher option

2014-01-14 Thread Code Raguet
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 9:57 PM, Daniel Narvaez dwnarv...@gmail.com wrote: * sugar-web uses semantic versioning. +1 ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel

Re: [Sugar-devel] Deprecation policy - was: About show-launcher option

2014-01-14 Thread Manuel Quiñones
2014/1/13 Daniel Narvaez dwnarv...@gmail.com: So, to summarize what I'm proposing on top of what Manuel posted * All interfaces which are not prefixed with an underscore are public. Yes, and we should also add the __all__ = [] to private modules. * The authoritative source for deprecated

Re: [Sugar-devel] Deprecation policy - was: About show-launcher option

2014-01-14 Thread Gonzalo Odiard
I agree with the overall proposal. About how much time we should keep the deprecate code two notes: manuq said: I think when the toolbars API changed we gave about 1 year for adaptation. I think this is not correct. The new toolbars were added in Sugar 0.86 [1], and removed in the port to gtk3

[Sugar-devel] Deprecation policy - was: About show-launcher option

2014-01-13 Thread Manuel Quiñones
2014/1/13 Daniel Narvaez dwnarv...@gmail.com: IMO it should be deprecated and then removed at some point. In general, I think our approach to API stability is way too ad hoc. We need some rules, even if very simple, to define what is public, how/when it is deprecated, and how/when it is

Re: [Sugar-devel] Deprecation policy - was: About show-launcher option

2014-01-13 Thread Daniel Narvaez
On 13 January 2014 18:21, Manuel Quiñones ma...@laptop.org wrote: 2014/1/13 Daniel Narvaez dwnarv...@gmail.com: IMO it should be deprecated and then removed at some point. In general, I think our approach to API stability is way too ad hoc. We need some rules, even if very simple, to

Re: [Sugar-devel] Deprecation policy - was: About show-launcher option

2014-01-13 Thread Manuel Quiñones
2014/1/13 Daniel Narvaez dwnarv...@gmail.com: On 13 January 2014 18:21, Manuel Quiñones ma...@laptop.org wrote: 2014/1/13 Daniel Narvaez dwnarv...@gmail.com: IMO it should be deprecated and then removed at some point. In general, I think our approach to API stability is way too ad hoc. We

Re: [Sugar-devel] Deprecation policy - was: About show-launcher option

2014-01-13 Thread Code Raguet
what about something like this http://semver.org/? On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 8:32 PM, Daniel Narvaez dwnarv...@gmail.com wrote: On 13 January 2014 18:21, Manuel Quiñones ma...@laptop.org wrote: 2014/1/13 Daniel Narvaez dwnarv...@gmail.com: IMO it should be deprecated and then removed at some

Re: [Sugar-devel] Deprecation policy - was: About show-launcher option

2014-01-13 Thread Daniel Narvaez
On 14 January 2014 00:44, Manuel Quiñones ma...@laptop.org wrote: We just need a way to know what is public API and what is not. Maybe, for new code, everything is public unless it has the usual underscore or there are inline docs mentioning it's not public. For old code well... I guess

Re: [Sugar-devel] Deprecation policy - was: About show-launcher option

2014-01-13 Thread Daniel Narvaez
Gah, s/what is deprecated and what is not/what is dropped and what is not/ On 14 January 2014 01:15, Daniel Narvaez dwnarv...@gmail.com wrote: On top of Manuel proposal or in alternative? I mean, does bumping the major version imply that all the deprecated bits are dropped? Or do we just

Re: [Sugar-devel] Deprecation policy - was: About show-launcher option

2014-01-13 Thread Daniel Narvaez
On top of Manuel proposal or in alternative? I mean, does bumping the major version imply that all the deprecated bits are dropped? Or do we just bump major whenever we make an API break but we decide case by case what is deprecated and what is not? On 14 January 2014 01:02, Code Raguet

Re: [Sugar-devel] Deprecation policy - was: About show-launcher option

2014-01-13 Thread Daniel Narvaez
My thoughts about semantic versioning * I think we should be flexible on the deprecated API we drop. Bumping major doesn't necessarily mean we have to drop all deprecated API. * I'd really like to adopt it but I'm not sure how to apply it to our six months cycle. It seems to be thought for

Re: [Sugar-devel] Deprecation policy - was: About show-launcher option

2014-01-13 Thread Daniel Narvaez
On 14 January 2014 01:33, Daniel Narvaez dwnarv...@gmail.com wrote: On 14 January 2014 01:06, Daniel Narvaez dwnarv...@gmail.com wrote: On 14 January 2014 00:44, Manuel Quiñones ma...@laptop.org wrote: We just need a way to know what is public API and what is not. Maybe, for new code,

Re: [Sugar-devel] Deprecation policy - was: About show-launcher option

2014-01-13 Thread Daniel Narvaez
On 14 January 2014 01:49, Daniel Narvaez dwnarv...@gmail.com wrote: On 14 January 2014 01:33, Daniel Narvaez dwnarv...@gmail.com wrote: On 14 January 2014 01:06, Daniel Narvaez dwnarv...@gmail.com wrote: On 14 January 2014 00:44, Manuel Quiñones ma...@laptop.org wrote: We just need a way

Re: [Sugar-devel] Deprecation policy - was: About show-launcher option

2014-01-13 Thread Daniel Narvaez
So, to summarize what I'm proposing on top of what Manuel posted * All interfaces which are not prefixed with an underscore are public. * The authoritative source for deprecated interfaces and their timeframe is a page in sugar-docs. * sugar-web uses semantic versioning.