| 1 |
On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 07:12:45AM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 1:09 AM, Mike Frysinger <vapier@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> > |
| 4 |
> > it would be nice to come up with some level of automated conversion. no |
| 5 |
> > matter how much we say "read the docs", there will always be people who do |
| 6 |
> > not. i think the reason the openrc upgrade has gone so smooth thus far is |
| 7 |
> > because how much we've done to auto-migrate settings. |
| 8 |
> > |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> True, but wouldn't any further improvement in migration be essentially |
| 11 |
> fixing the barn doors after the horses have left? What percentage of |
| 12 |
> our users are still running baselayout-1 now? The fact that things |
| 13 |
> have gone fairly smoothly suggests to me that further investment in |
| 14 |
> migration code isn't going to yield much benefit. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
I tend to agree with this angle. I do not see any reason to change the |
| 17 |
migration code; we should have done that before we took OpenRc stable if |
| 18 |
we were going to imho. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
> I'd just leave it |
| 21 |
> all alone for a few months or whatever to let people finish migrating |
| 22 |
> and then start triggering deprecation warnings. In fact, there is no |
| 23 |
> reason to not generate deprecation warnings now - when openrc |
| 24 |
> migration is still fresh in everybody's minds. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
I agree more with this than attempting to do a migration. I will look |
| 27 |
into getting deprecation warnings into the code. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
William |
Archives