5 years is not a bad range from a software support perspective but begins to sound like OS long-term support. Some of the code I work with claims to support back 3 or 4 major releases... unless they add something that isn't backward compatible. I think 5 years is a decent middle-ground.
gerry On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 9:42 AM, Curt, WE7U <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, 16 Feb 2018, Tom Russo wrote: > > My proposal is that we shoot for 5 years back. If a library has deprecated >>> a function and a new one replaced it 5 or more years ago, we should be good >>> to replace that section of code with the new function w/o maintaining >>> backwards compatibility with the earlier function call. >>> >>> Any takers on 5 years? Different suggestions? >>> >> >> 5 years seems reasonable to me. Some distros are *extremely* conservative >> and may have long term support versions (staring angrily at RHEL, frex). >> > > Any dissenting opinions out there? > > > The code I was thinking of whacking is actually there to support old >> versions >> of Magick from over 15 years ago. I think it should be very safe to clean >> it out. >> > > Agreed. > > -- > Curt, WE7U. http://we7u.wetnet.net > "Lotto: A tax on people who are bad at math." - unknown > "Windows: Microsoft's tax on computer illiterates." - WE7U. > Coordinate Converter (Android): http://www.sarguydigital.com > _______________________________________________ > Xastir-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://xastir.org/mailman/listinfo/xastir-dev > -- Gerry Creager NSSL/CIMMS 405.325.6371 ++++++++++++++++++++++ “Big whorls have little whorls, That feed on their velocity; And little whorls have lesser whorls, And so on to viscosity.” Lewis Fry Richardson (1881-1953) _______________________________________________ Xastir-dev mailing list [email protected] http://xastir.org/mailman/listinfo/xastir-dev
