We should attempt to follow the deprecation policy if at all possible
which it is in this case. The correct procedure would be to maintain a
2.1 branch and branch off again to form a 2.2 branch. The only
objection I can see to this is the more difficult nature of porting bug
fixes. But there is not going to be a lot of enhancements in the 2.x
line, so porting across branches should be pretty easy.
Who was against having a 2.1.x releases as long as there are developers
who are going to take on the task of providing them?
And are people opposed to having a 2.2 release? What is the reason
against it? They may not contain enough enhancements to get people to
want to upgrade, but we are not selling anything. The 2.2 and beyond
releases would be primarily directed at new users, so that they do not
get caught using things that are going to disappear in later releases.
john mcnally
Fedor Karpelevitch wrote:
>
> With all my desire to cooperate I have not seen good enough reason to lift
> my -1 on B.
> I am willing to lift my -1 on A though. Basically I am willing to go with
> any solution which involves a _strictly_ backward-compatible (no
> deprecation) branch of 2.x;
> I am not sure I understand the importance of DP in the face of REAL THING. I
> think it is a goo idea to review DP in any case as it is unclear in certain
> cases. And I do not see a big deal in violating it if we can reach consensus
> that a certain thing needs to be removed without deprecation.
>
> In fact, by backpatching 2.x you are not following the deprrecation policy,
> but just trying to fool someone (yourself? users? some lawyer who is going
> to sue you for violating DP?). Because the DP says that you need to have
> things deprecated in the previous release to remove them, and previous
> release for 3.0 is 2.1; and 2.1 is already released IN THE PAST, so you can
> not change it unless you have a time machine.
>
> dixi.
>
> fedor.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2001 12:26 AM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: results: [vote]2.x release
> >
> >
> > A: 2.1.1 bug-fix release
> > -1 : 2
> > +1 : 1
> >
> > B: 2.2 bug-fix + deprecation release
> > -1 : 2 (fedor, josh)
> > +1 : 7
> >
> > C: breaking our deprecation rules
> > -1 : 1 (martin)
> > +1 : 1
> >
> > it's very bad to define rules and break them 2 weeks later!!!
> >
> >
> > B is most preffered, but we have 2 -1!!
> > fedor, josh could you please think about it?!?
> > i think deprecation warnings are not that bad!
> > most people will never see them because i don't know if
> > anyone is using castor,
> > freemarker or webmacro ...
> >
> > martin
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
