Am Mittwoch, den 22.08.2007, 16:15 -0400 schrieb Tres Seaver:
> > I eventually came to the conclusion that our original conclusion was
> > sound, but that we should only introduce backward incompatibilities
> > when the need is very dire, as it will cause lots of pain.
+1 from me as well.
> +1. Cleanliness is not a good enough reason to break a public API,
> for instance. If necessary, the incompatible stuff might be better
> off moving to a new package / API name altogether, with the old name
> left as a pure compatibility shim (perhaps wich "evergreen" deprecation
By that you mean that we put deprecation warnings in place and tell
people where to find the new stuff without the time-pressure notices
like "will go away when you don't look"? :)
Zope3-dev mailing list