WADivTag >> #clear

Do we need/want that? It's from 2005.

Cheers
Philippe
_______________________________________________
seaside-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/seaside-dev

We should deprecate it.

Lukas

On 25 June 2011 20:18, Philippe Marschall <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Do we need/want that? It's from 2005.
>
> Cheers
> Philippe
> _______________________________________________
> seaside-dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/seaside-dev
>



--
Lukas Renggli
www.lukas-renggli.ch
_______________________________________________
seaside-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/seaside-dev

2011/6/25 Lukas Renggli <[hidden email]>:
> We should deprecate it.

Ok, similarly: WATabBrush >> #onEnter: deprecate that as well?

Cheers
Philippe
_______________________________________________
seaside-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/seaside-dev

Yes, we should deprecate that too, it was already marked as not
present in the "comparison" :-)

On 25 June 2011 21:00, Philippe Marschall <[hidden email]> wrote:


--
Lukas Renggli
www.lukas-renggli.ch
_______________________________________________
seaside-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/seaside-dev

Should we do this in the 3.1 branch so we can delete all the existing deprecated methods before adding new ones?



_______________________________________________
seaside-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/seaside-dev

2011/6/25 Julian Fitzell <[hidden email]>:
> Should we do this in the 3.1 branch so we can delete all the existing
> deprecated methods before adding new ones?

I would say deprecate in 3.0 and delete in 3.1.

Cheers
Philippe
_______________________________________________
seaside-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/seaside-dev

I think Julian meant deleting the one that are already deprecated in 3.0 first before adding new deprecations.

But is there a 3.1 branch?

On 26 Jun 2011, at 12:53, Philippe Marschall wrote:

_______________________________________________
seaside-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/seaside-dev

Well, I meant: "Is it cool to deprecate something part way through the 3.0.x series?" or should we always be deprecating at the beginning of a series? It just occurred to me that you might deprecate a bunch of things in 3.0 and then something else in, say, 3.0.7. When it turns out that there is no 3.0.8 and the next release ends up being 3.1, you want to delete all the deprecations but there was only a very short warning for the one added in 3.0.8...
_______________________________________________
seaside-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/seaside-dev

2011/6/26 Julian Fitzell <[hidden email]>:
> Well, I meant: "Is it cool to deprecate something part way through the 3.0.x
> series?" or should we always be deprecating at the beginning of a series? It
> just occurred to me that you might deprecate a bunch of things in 3.0 and
> then something else in, say, 3.0.7. When it turns out that there is no 3.0.8
> and the next release ends up being 3.1, you want to delete all the
> deprecations but there was only a very short warning for the one added in
> 3.0.8...

Yes, that's the plan.

Cheers
Philippe
_______________________________________________
seaside-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/seaside-dev