On 03/13/2013 12:37 PM, Branko Čibej wrote: > Actually, if we're revving an API, it's just as valid to /remove/ > options as it is to add them. IMO. > The backwards-compat behaviour can be encapsulated in the implementation. > > So, for example, we could go ahead and remove the ignore-ancestry option > from switch.
We could, yes, but then we force ourselves to use a deprecated API to support the '--ignore-ancestry' command-line option which is hooked to that API boolean, and which we do wish to keep around precisely because of the reasons I enumerated (compatibility for folks who were/are used to wielding the tool differently than its ideal way). I dunno ... that seems kinda silly to me. -- C. Michael Pilato <cmpil...@collab.net> CollabNet <> www.collab.net <> Enterprise Cloud Development
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
