cordova-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Lorin Beer <lorin.beer....@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Decreasing the Deprecation Time
Date Wed, 13 Mar 2013 14:45:38 GMT
given the reasoning presented by Joe and Tommy, I'm +1 for this.
It strikes me that a project which releases as often as ours (~1/month)
needs to have a deprecation policy based on that, not an arbitrary fixed
length of time.


On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 5:06 PM, Tommy-Carlos Williams
<tommy@devgeeks.org>wrote:

> Just my $0.02, but it almost seems like you are hampering yourselves while
> at the same time introducing very little in the way of stability anyway.
>
> No one sees a deprecation warning and thinks "ooh… better not use that…",
> they say "a warning is not an error" and move on with their project.
>
> As a plugin author, I was one of the proponents of the deprecation policy,
> yet I still feel like plugins break every 2-3 releases anyway, so why hold
> yourselves back on other changes/features?
>
> - tommy
>
>
>
> On 13/03/2013, at 9:14 AM, Joe Bowser <bowserj@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hey
> >
> > When we first set up the deprecation policy, we did it because we
> > didn't anticipate that we would create massive breakage with Cordova.
> > Unfortunately as we get closer to 3.0, it seems clear that we agreed
> > on a policy that isn't allowing us to develop as fast as we would
> > like.  For example, we had to wait six months to remove old history
> > code that we could have safely removed three months ago when it was
> > clear that maintaining our own history was not the right way to work
> > around issues.
> >
> > So, I propose that we change the deprecation policy from six months to
> > the past three releases.  Since we release once a month at most, this
> > will allow us to update the software without having the overhead that
> > we currently have with the current policy.  Point releases (i.e.
> > 2.5.1) would not count as a release under this policy, it would have
> > to be a minor release (i.e. 2.5.0) or a major release (3.0).
> >
> > Any thoughts on this?
> >
> > Joe
>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message