D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote:
> On Thu, 03 Apr 2008 13:06:25 -0400
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> wrote:
>
>> D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote:
>>
>>> In fact, this may be the way to deprecate contrib. Start building
>>> modules and move the contrib packages to it one at a time. That way
>>> people using contrib have some time to switch and we can point people
>>> to modules if they are just starting out.
>>>
>>> Is there support for this idea? I would like to start exploring this
>>> if so.
>>>
>> No. I don't want to deprecate it, I want to get rid of it, lock, stock
>> and barrel. If you think that we need more than renaming then we can
>> discuss it, but I don't want a long death, I want one that is certain
>> and swift.
>>
>
> Well, OK, but given that this is a huge public project with lots of
> users expecting things to be in certain places, how fast do you think
> we could make such a change. It seems to me that we are going to have
> to make things look the same for some time at least otherwise we are
> going to have lots of complaints. How swift is swift? To me, swift
> means add the alternate functionality to the next release and remove
> the old in the release after. Do you see things happening any faster?
>
>
I don't understand this at all. We are talking about directory and
package organisation here. How do you do that with transition
arrangements? I guess we could put in a symlink from contrib, but I just
don't see the point. I don't think we are under any obligation to
preserve the way we package or split packages between releases. And
doing this reorganisation now, fairly early in the release cycle, would
let us give people like packagers plenty of advance notice.
cheers
andrew
