-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Christian Theune wrote:
> 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"? :)
Right. I don't think removing public APIs is useful, for the reasons
Jim was outlining: the chance of breaking unknown dependents is not
worth the cleanup (e.g., zLOG).
Tres Seaver +1 540-429-0999 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Palladion Software "Excellence by Design" http://palladion.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Zope3-dev mailing list