Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from June 2013
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 01:26:29PM +0200, demerphq wrote: > 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)." Correct - they have the right to complain. > "I still fail to see the urge to break something without a clear > technical need." Correct - I fail to see it. > 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. You keep conflating "deprecated" with "gone". The whole point I am trying to raise is that this is ridiculous. Consider my terminology: * Deprecated => may disappear down the road, warns loudly, but still there * Gone => compile time error The transition between *these two states* is what I think we should require a technical reason for. "I want to have a shorter list of deprecated stuff" is *NOT* a technical reason. It is a moronic reason. > 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. If someone (you or a new developer) decides to spend his tuits to "shorten the deprecation list" - yes I will "whine". And until rjbs says otherwise I damn well will continue to do so. > 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.) Could you expand what incident are you referring to? > Now, if you want to join FC in arguing that a feature should be > *un*deprecated that is fine, go ahead. The pumpking has spoken on *that* issue[1], there is nothing to argue about. > 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. Correct - we are having this other argument now. The pumpking has not ruled on *this* argument. Cheers [1] http://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.perl5.porters/2013/06/msg203752.htmlThread Previous | Thread Next