> We should never intentionally break people's code like that if there > is no pressing issue. Adding deprecation warnings is ok to point > people in the right direction, but from discussions about this at SD12 > and in other places it has become clear at least to me that six months > is not even remotely long enough for people to change their code and > adapt.
I disagree, we should break whatever we dislike for a *X.0* release (+ DeprecationWarning for some months) Sage is a young agile fast moving project and shouldn't be burdened with all kinds of old stuff just lying around. I really liked Roman's comment on this matter, i.e. that we should change stuff around while we can. It seems to me: Sage isn't done yet and pretending it was does more harm than good by making it more difficult to contribute. Also, this whole 'don't break people's code' thing is a sham to some extend anyway since the behavior of functions changes so much even in minor releases anyway. Also it is those kind of changes that lead to subtle bugs that are hard to notice in contrast to someting like an AttributeError. Cheers, Martin -- name: Martin Albrecht _pgp: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x8EF0DC99 _otr: 47F43D1A 5D68C36F 468BAEBA 640E8856 D7951CCF _www: http://www.informatik.uni-bremen.de/~malb _jab: martinralbre...@jabber.ccc.de --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sage-devel-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URLs: http://www.sagemath.org -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
