Smalltalk › Pharo › Pharo Smalltalk Developers

[update 3.0] #30013

_‹ Previous Topic Next Topic _›

Classic

List

Threaded

10 messages Options

Marcus Denker-4

[update 3.0] #30013

stephane ducasse

Re: [update 3.0] #30013

why do we unload deprecated20 now

because for me we should unload 1.4 in 30 and 20 in 40alpha.

Of course people can load it.

On Mar 26, 2013, at 8:08 AM, Marcus Denker <[hidden email]> wrote:

10081 unload Deprecated20 in 3.0
https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/10081

Marcus Denker-4

Re: [update 3.0] #30013

On Mar 26, 2013, at 8:24 AM, stephane ducasse <[hidden email]> wrote:

why do we unload deprecated20 now
because for me we should unload 1.4 in 30 and 20 in 40alpha.
Of course people can load it.

I think we started to do that earlier when in 1.4 the deprecated was absolutely huge

and made it impossible to clean up further.

(It contained all the MVC support code from Graphics and Fonts)

On Mar 26, 2013, at 8:08 AM, Marcus Denker <[hidden email]> wrote:

10081 unload Deprecated20 in 3.0
https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/10081

Marcus Denker-4

Re: [update 3.0] #30013

On Mar 26, 2013, at 8:31 AM, Marcus Denker <[hidden email]> wrote:

On Mar 26, 2013, at 8:24 AM, stephane ducasse <[hidden email]> wrote:

why do we unload deprecated20 now
because for me we should unload 1.4 in 30 and 20 in 40alpha.
Of course people can load it.

I think we started to do that earlier when in 1.4 the deprecated was absolutely huge
and made it impossible to clean up further.
(It contained all the MVC support code from Graphics and Fonts)

Another thing is: this is why I *beg* people to review fixes.

If nobody reviews, I just do what *I* think is right. This can be completely wrong,

of course.

Marcus

Camillo Bruni-3

Re: [update 3.0] #30013

In reply to this post by stephane ducasse

On 2013-03-26, at 08:24, stephane ducasse <[hidden email]> wrote:

> why do we unload deprecated20 now

but it was deprecated in 2.0, so you keep it in 1 version => 2.0
and remove it in the next version => 3.0.

and the earlier we remove them the better can we adapt 3.0. no?

> because for me we should unload 1.4 in 30 and 20 in 40alpha.
> Of course people can load it.
>
>
>
> On Mar 26, 2013, at 8:08 AM, Marcus Denker <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> 10081 unload Deprecated20 in 3.0
>> https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/10081
>

camille teruel

Re: [update 3.0] #30013

On 26 mars 2013, at 08:51, Camillo Bruni wrote:

>
> On 2013-03-26, at 08:24, stephane ducasse <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> why do we unload deprecated20 now
>
> but it was deprecated in 2.0, so you keep it in 1 version => 2.0
> and remove it in the next version => 3.0.

It totally agree.
However we could have cleaned the senders of those deprecated first, because DNUs will appear eventually.

>
> and the earlier we remove them the better can we adapt 3.0. no?

>
>> because for me we should unload 1.4 in 30 and 20 in 40alpha.
>> Of course people can load it.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mar 26, 2013, at 8:08 AM, Marcus Denker <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>> 10081 unload Deprecated20 in 3.0
>>> https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/10081
>>
>
>

Sven Van Caekenberghe-2

Re: [update 3.0] #30013

In reply to this post by Camillo Bruni-3

On 26 Mar 2013, at 08:51, Camillo Bruni <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On 2013-03-26, at 08:24, stephane ducasse <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> why do we unload deprecated20 now
>
> but it was deprecated in 2.0, so you keep it in 1 version => 2.0
> and remove it in the next version => 3.0.
>
> and the earlier we remove them the better can we adapt 3.0. no?

I am with Camillo: deprecate it 1 release, remove it the next

>> because for me we should unload 1.4 in 30 and 20 in 40alpha.
>> Of course people can load it.

Marcus Denker-4

Re: [update 3.0] #30013

In reply to this post by camille teruel

On Mar 26, 2013, at 9:12 AM, Camille Teruel <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On 26 mars 2013, at 08:51, Camillo Bruni wrote:
>
>>
>> On 2013-03-26, at 08:24, stephane ducasse <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>> why do we unload deprecated20 now
>>
>> but it was deprecated in 2.0, so you keep it in 1 version => 2.0
>> and remove it in the next version => 3.0.
>
> It totally agree.
> However we could have cleaned the senders of those deprecated first, because DNUs will appear eventually.

normally the person who deprecates a method should fix all senders.
I was so sure that this is the case that I did not even check.

Marcus

stephane ducasse

Re: [update 3.0] #30013

>>>>
>>
>> It totally agree.
>> However we could have cleaned the senders of those deprecated first, because DNUs will appear eventually.

Ok then this is ok to me.

>
> normally the person who deprecates a method should fix all senders.
> I was so sure that this is the case that I did not even check.

yes
>
> Marcus

stephane ducasse

Re: [update 3.0] #30013

In reply to this post by Marcus Denker-4

>
> Another thing is: this is why I *beg* people to review fixes.
> If nobody reviews, I just do what *I* think is right. This can be completely wrong,
> of course.

Yes but it takes time and we are few so we should not stress.
I think that integrating big chunks is important too.

I will come back to reviewing code :)

Stef

>
> Marcus
>