
7 Jun
2012
7 Jun
'12
3:34 p.m.
On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 6:21 PM, Bryan O'Sullivan
On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Bas van Dijk
wrote: On 7 June 2012 14:46, Ian Lynagh
wrote: I propose that we remove ... from base.
Shouldn't they first get through a deprecation cycle?
I don't see any value to that; it just adds a year of latency.
We have plenty of evidence that "this will break in the next release" warnings are ignored until after that next release, when people who update are finally forced to confront stuff being broken.
I don't think this is fair. We don't notice the cases where people quietly update the code without making a fuss. I'm +1 on a deprecation cycle.