commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Phil Steitz <>
Subject Re: [math] preparing smooth interface upgrade for users
Date Wed, 17 Nov 2010 12:48:42 GMT
On 11/16/10 7:10 PM, Gilles Sadowski wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>> I think this transition is the smoother path for our users. Do you think
>>>> this change is the way to go ?
>>> -0
>> +1
>>> My first impression is that it is a lot of changes for 2.2 without any
>>> benefit when users will switch to 3.0; they will still have to scan their
>>> code for all the exceptions that will have disappeared.
>> Won't the deprecations take care of that?
> I didn't mean that they have to scan "manually", just that they will have to
> make the same change in 3.0 as they would in 2.2 (not more, not less work).
> Hence, I see no benefit in breaking the "no compatibility breaking" rule in
> 2.2.

I think what Luc is suggesting is that by introducing 
MathUserException in 2.2 without a material compatibility break 
(i.e. nothing that would actually break any 2.1 code) we could set 
users to start doing this work incrementally before 3.0 is released. 
  That seems like a good idea to me IIUC what the impacts are.

>>> In 3.0 it will clear that they *have* to do it while, in 2.2, you would
>>> have to explain to users that it's better that they do it but that it
>>> will still work if they don't... And they will probably say: "If it ain't
>>> broken, I won't fix it." ;-)
>> However, deprecation warnings are a strong hint that failure is
>> imminent, and they may wish to prepare for the change.
> Yes. We should advertise the list of exceptions that are going to be
> replaced by "MathUserException" when users switch 3.0, by deprecating
> them in 2.2.
> The preparation is to have a perl (or sed or ...) script ready.
I think we all agree on the deprecations.  I understand your view, 
Gilles, that Luc's suggestion does not reduce work for those 
upgrading to 3.0; but don't you agree it would be helpful for them 
to be able to start - even just with new code they are developing - 
using the new user exception, assuming we can introduce it in 2.2 
without breaking anything?

Luc / Sebb - can you see any real backward compat issue?  Would this 
change force a recompile?

> Best,
> Gilles
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message