On Wed, 2006-06-14 at 15:44 +0200, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Previously Chris McDonough wrote:
> > A year suits me fine if it were the *actual* deprecation period, rather
> > than the six-month deprecation cycle as is the case with zLOG and the
> > eight-month deprecation cycle as is the case with 'methods'.
> I haven't kept track of zLOG (I'm still new to this world) so I don't
> know if that went according to the normal schedule or not.

Actually, it will (or at least pretty close), since we aren't removing
it until 2.11 (I computed 6 months based on 2.10, sorry).

> If I understand this correctly the problem you are seeing is this that
> you develop against an unreleased Zope version, so worst case your
> deprecation period starts just before the first beta of release x when
> someone adds a deprecation and ends at the  time trunk opens for
> development for release x+2 and the deprecated feature is removed, which
> can be 6 months.

No, actually, that's not what I mean.

> I don't think that's a very fair method of measuring deprecation time:
> for stable releases which almost everyone uses the deprecation time will
> have been the full year.

Hmmm.  Then I think someone needs to explain this:


(Final release late June/early July 2006)



(fixup checkin made Nov. 4, 2005, the earliest checkin for these
deprecations was Oct. 31 2005).

I'm no math genius, but that sure seems like about 8 months to me

- C

Zope-Dev maillist  -  Zope-Dev@zope.org
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
 http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )

Reply via email to