ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Magesh Umasankar" <umag...@apache.org>
Subject RE: Speaking of deprecation...
Date Fri, 08 Feb 2002 03:04:25 GMT
From:  "Conor MacNeill" <conor@cortexebusiness.com.au>

> I think you missed Bruce's point. Consider this scenario:
> 
> You are given a build file. It uses some deprecated 
> features. You are asked to bring it up to date. If 
> the documentation doesn't specify what the deprecated 
> features do, how can you confidently make the changes.

If your build file is 1.2 compliant and you want 
to upgrade to 1.5, then, yes, you may have to read
Ant 1.4.1's docs to see what got deprecated and
removed (at least, from docs) in between.  Otherwise,
you would still be able to see the deprecated
stuff visible in the docs.  

In fact, something along these lines was only 
suggested when the proposition to do away with 
deprecated code was brought up.  What would the 
user have done to convert a build file from an old 
version to a new version which had deprecated code 
removed? - I guess the answer would be convert to 
the immediate next (or the 2nd next) version and
then convert that once more (iteratively).

> I agree with Bruce. Documentation should reflect 
> the code.  If a feature is in the code, it should 
> be in the documentation.  If a feature is deprecated 
> in the code, it should be marked as deprecated in
> the documentation but it should still be described.

OK, though I would like to somehow strongly discourage 
use of deprecated features...

> 
> Conor

Cheers,
Magesh



--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:ant-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:ant-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org>


Mime
View raw message