For me one year is fine as a deprecation period. I feel that sites
should be kept stable when working, and then, after maybe a year or
two or more, when needed, moved to a new and updated system. If you
then have special software, you'll need to update it.
If we want those types of updates to
Tim Peters wrote at 2006-1-4 14:51 -0500:
[Dieter Maurer]
If the backward compatibility period gets shorter,
we will skip more and more releases because of the increased burden
to get our applications running again...
Well, every new release will remove features deprecated N releases
ago,
Benji York wrote at 2006-1-4 14:22 -0500:
Dieter Maurer wrote:
Jim Fulton wrote at 2006-1-3 14:41 -0500:
I think 12 months is a bit short. I don't think the backward-compatibility
code
is that burdonsome, once written. What do other folks think?
If the backward compatibility period gets
Jim Fulton wrote at 2006-1-3 14:41 -0500:
...
I think 12 months is a bit short. I don't think the backward-compatibility
code
is that burdonsome, once written. What do other folks think?
If the backward compatibility period gets shorter,
we will skip more and more releases because of the
[Dieter Maurer]
If the backward compatibility period gets shorter,
we will skip more and more releases because of the increased burden
to get our applications running again...
Well, every new release will remove features deprecated N releases
ago, where N is presumably some constant whose
Benji York wrote:
Stephan Richter wrote:
On Tuesday 03 January 2006 13:33, Benji York wrote:
As a corollary, it would be time now to remove the BBB that should be
removed for 3.3. Should we wait for 3.4?
Following the rules above, if 3.3 will be released more than 12 months
since the
