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 work
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
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
>
[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 va
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 shorter,
we will skip more and more releases b
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 i
Hi,
Am Dienstag, den 03.01.2006, 14:41 -0500 schrieb Jim Fulton:
> > As much as BBB code annoys me personally, I think maintaining a minimum
> > compatibility window is necessary for an important class of user.
>
> I think 12 months is a bit short. I don't think the backward-compatibility
> co
