Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from September 2016
On 09/23/2016 01:58 PM, Aristotle Pagaltzis wrote: > * Kent Fredric <kentfredric@gmail.com> [2016-09-22 20:48]: >> On 22 September 2016 at 21:21, Abigail <abigail@abigail.be> wrote: >>> when the deprecated ones are scheduled to be >>>> removed, or that there is no current plan to remove them. >>> I think we should eliminate the latter category. >> Disagree. That category mostly exists because we shouldn't be removing >> things "just because". > I agree with the justification but not the conclusion. I think Abigail and Aristotle provide good arguments. Having a date or release on it basically provides a clearer expectation of what you get and don't get. Perl has many "but I got it working" which comes down to p5p actually continually supporting something because someone uses it, even though it's deprecated. It is unfortunate that effectively any recommendation to not use can (and sometimes is) ignored for the sole reason of "it works", and we obviously can't make it unwork without a clean cycle. Noting that something is deprecated does not matter in practice. Noting that something will be removed is a clear indication and assurance that whether it's working or not is not what matters anymore. The "but it's working" is no longer on the table. "It won't be available" is on the table instead. (I had objected to some of it in the past, and slowly I'm realizing that might have been prematurely rejecting a sound argument.)Thread Previous | Thread Next