Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from June 2013
On 27 June 2013 13:08, Peter Rabbitson <rabbit-p5p@rabbit.us> wrote: > I omitted a bunch of text where you keep claiming I said things I never > said (and Nicholas seemed to understand what I meant from the get-go) Dude, read your mails. You said: "An end user could very well complain that a feature was gone without a technical reason (see below)." "I still fail to see the urge to break something without a clear technical need." You use "technical" as a metric to decide if someone has a worthy reason to remove something. I posit that *any* deprecation is due to technical reasons and as such the only way that your position makes sense is to read it as implying that you get to decide if the reason is technical enough. Which IMO doesnt fly. The time to make arguments like that is when the feature is deprecated. Not when random developer decides to use their volunteer tuits to remove something we said they could remove. I would be really pissed if some developer decided to contribute their time and remove a bunch of deprecated features and you whined that there wasnt a good enough reason. I dont want developers to be discouraged doing what we already told them they could do. (As in been there, done that, it wasn't fun, and I'd like to make sure it doesnt happen to other people.) Now, if you want to join FC in arguing that a feature should be *un*deprecated that is fine, go ahead. But that is an entirely different argument to you having the right to complain if I remove something we all have already agreed can and should be removed. YvesThread Previous | Thread Next