1 |
Ciaran McCreesh posted on Wed, 03 Mar 2010 12:47:41 +0000 as excerpted: |
2 |
|
3 |
> On Wed, 03 Mar 2010 09:47:37 +0100 |
4 |
> Tomáš Chvátal <scarabeus@g.o> wrote: |
5 |
>> >> Removing eclass functions like this is not allowed by current |
6 |
>> >> policy. If you want to do it, you should discuss about changing |
7 |
>> >> policy. |
8 |
>> > |
9 |
>> > since when? |
10 |
>> > |
11 |
>> Since ever. |
12 |
>> If you change eclass abi you need to rename it. |
13 |
> |
14 |
> No, that's not been the case 'since ever' at all. It used to be that if |
15 |
> you changed or removed a function, you just had to make sure you didn't |
16 |
> break anything. This was made more complicated by the way that eclasses |
17 |
> in the tree were used for removing installed packages too, which is no |
18 |
> longer an issue. |
19 |
|
20 |
Indeed. And a long time waiting and a lot of work went into making it |
21 |
possible to change eclasses without affecting uninstalls of currently |
22 |
installed packages that used them. |
23 |
|
24 |
Now that the wait is over and the work is done, are we going to forbid to |
25 |
actually use it? |
26 |
|
27 |
But I believe the policy claim was simply a misunderstanding of the |
28 |
original practical requirement and the reasons behind it. With that |
29 |
misunderstanding cleared up, what remains is ensuring that current in-tree |
30 |
use gets fixed, and the changes are communicated so future users get it |
31 |
right, as well. The proposed deprecation and migration plan does seem to |
32 |
do that, altho minor quibbles on timing could be made. (It does seem most |
33 |
changes like this get a year by tradition, and that would be to the "die" |
34 |
phase, which would put it at March ??, 2011, with the final removal |
35 |
perhaps another six months out. However, for this ~arch user, that always |
36 |
seemed overly conservative, so /I'd/ not contest the shorter timing as |
37 |
proposed. Someone might wish to, tho, and AFAIK the precedent would be |
38 |
behind them.) |
39 |
|
40 |
I would suggest setting /some/ sort of minimum time policy, however, |
41 |
perhaps four months per phase (warning, die), thus giving folks who update |
42 |
once per quarter a bit of leeway. In practice that'd push the die phase |
43 |
out slightly as the deprecations are still being debated and are |
44 |
presumably not in-tree yet, perhaps to mid-July if they're in by mid-month |
45 |
(March), but allow removal before the end of the year. |
46 |
|
47 |
-- |
48 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
49 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
50 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman |