On Sat, 2014-05-24 at 19:54 +0200, Alexander Sack wrote: > On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 6:43 PM, Ted Gould <[email protected]> wrote: > > No reason to take on tech debt if we don't have to. Certainly if a bunch of > > people reply that it's an issue it's not impossible to do that. But cruft is > > cruft, I'd rather be proactive on cleaning it. > > You will not be able to find all that might use the old name by asking > Ubuntu Phone mailing list :).
Certainly, but the fix is trivial, so when people notice it broken they'll fix their script and move on. But if they're not aware of it, they'll do an investigation and waste time on that. The goal is to make people aware of it so they can fix problems quickly if they do arise. > Hence, providing deprecation with warnings etc. for a while sounds > like the way to go for name transitions like this. > > Is the cost of carrying that "debt" really that bad? You still have the same transition cost whether it's next week or or next month when you drop those names. I don't see any reason not to have it now rather than later. I'd rather do the full transition at some point than to do it partially. Ted
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-phone Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-phone More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
