1 |
On Friday 05 March 2010 15:14:33 Ryan Hill wrote: |
2 |
> On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 13:12:36 +0200 Petteri Räty wrote: |
3 |
> > Because there is so little benefit from removing old functions. What is |
4 |
> > so bad about having them grouped at the bottom of the file inside a |
5 |
> > deprecated section? |
6 |
> |
7 |
> Because then people use them. Don't ask me why. I have things I |
8 |
> deprecated over two years ago still being used by a dozen ebuilds bumped |
9 |
> within the last three months. You should be familiar with this behaviour |
10 |
> wrt. |
11 |
> built_with_use. So, when I'm making changes I still have to maintain the |
12 |
> deprecated stuff. |
13 |
> |
14 |
> If I really want to get rid of it, then I have to break it. Replace the |
15 |
> whole thing with a eerror like any of our deprecated eclasses. At that |
16 |
> point, I would rather just remove the function or eclass than curate a |
17 |
> museum of dead interfaces. But I suppose that's a personal quirk -- I |
18 |
> hate having old unused code around. |
19 |
|
20 |
indeed ... and to take it further, ive seen devs inclined to leave ebuilds |
21 |
alone even after they were told point blank the funcs were deprecated and |
22 |
going away. |
23 |
-mike |