Re: Deferring the removal of temp APIs

No objections here so I marked the roadmap item "Deferred" and green in r1135058. - Julian On Fri, 2011-06-10 at 11:48 -0400, C. Michael Pilato wrote: > On 06/10/2011 11:38 AM, Hyrum K Wright wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 10:33 AM, C. Michael Pilato > > wrote: > >> On 06/10/2011 07:39 AM,

Re: Deferring the removal of temp APIs

On 06/10/2011 11:38 AM, Hyrum K Wright wrote: > On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 10:33 AM, C. Michael Pilato > wrote: >> On 06/10/2011 07:39 AM, Daniel Shahaf wrote: >>> Julian Foad wrote on Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 11:17:11 +0100: The consensus seemed to be [1] that we can add/remove/change private

Re: Deferring the removal of temp APIs

On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 10:33 AM, C. Michael Pilato wrote: > On 06/10/2011 07:39 AM, Daniel Shahaf wrote: >> Julian Foad wrote on Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 11:17:11 +0100: >>> The consensus seemed to be [1] that we can add/remove/change private >>> APIs during the 1.7.x series, >> >> Indeed that's the

Re: Deferring the removal of temp APIs

On 06/10/2011 07:39 AM, Daniel Shahaf wrote: > Julian Foad wrote on Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 11:17:11 +0100: >> The consensus seemed to be [1] that we can add/remove/change private >> APIs during the 1.7.x series, > > Indeed that's the consensus I have sensed. I am not sure if we include > the svn* c

Re: Deferring the removal of temp APIs

Julian Foad wrote on Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 11:17:11 +0100: > The consensus seemed to be [1] that we can add/remove/change private > APIs during the 1.7.x series, Indeed that's the consensus I have sensed. I am not sure if we include the svn* clients in this "upgrade en bloc" group, but Philip's re

Deferring the removal of temp APIs

The consensus seemed to be [1] that we can add/remove/change private APIs during the 1.7.x series, because the set of libraries should always be upgraded/downgraded as a set, not individually. Therefore I intend to mark the item as "Deferred" and coloured green in