On Sun, 29 Apr 2007, Stefan Richter wrote:
> Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> > i think this online definition matches what i have in mind:
> >
> > http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls=GGGL,GGGL:2006-10,GGGL:en&defl=en&q=define:Deprecated&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title
>
> "Definitions of Depreca
Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> * deprecated: while a feature is still supported, its use is
> discouraged because there is a better alternative that you should
> consider migrating to at your convenience.
IOW "discouraged, no {mid,long}-term commitment, alternative available,
supported"
> * obsolete:
Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> i think this online definition matches what i have in mind:
>
> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls=GGGL,GGGL:2006-10,GGGL:en&defl=en&q=define:Deprecated&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title
"Definitions of Deprecated on the Web: [...] This term is used to refer
to /o
On Sun, 29 Apr 2007, Stefan Richter wrote:
> I see a discussion on OBSOLETE vs. BROKEN there, which even ended in
> a consensus, but I do not see an explicit discussion on OBSOLETE vs.
> DEPRECATED.
i think this online definition matches what i have in mind:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rl
On Sun, 29 Apr 2007, Stefan Richter wrote:
> (Although if a certain number of kernel components is
> inappropriately labeled, the facility becomes useless of course.)
well, sure, but if someone chooses to use a tool incorrectly, there's
really no way to stop them. and i'm guessing that that sort
Am 28.04.2007 15:25 schrieb Robert P. J. Day:
> http://fsdev.net/wiki/index.php?title=Maturity_levels
You note:
> DEPRECATED and OBSOLETE at the very least, whose definitions should be
> reasonably obvious.
The obviousness is in the eye of the beholder. :-)
For the sake of us non-native speake
Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Apr 2007, Stefan Richter wrote:
>> And that benefit is...? :-)
...
> if you're not convinced, there's nothing else i can think of to say
> that will persuade you.
It didn't come across this way, sorry, but I didn't ask a priori to be
persuaded, but rather becau
On Sat, 28 Apr 2007, Stefan Richter wrote:
> Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> > On Sat, 28 Apr 2007, Stefan Richter wrote:
> >> Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> > i think there's a real benefit in being able to say that you can
> > configure and build a kernel that incorporates nothing that people
> > have lab
I wrote:
> Robert P. J. Day wrote:
>> there's stuff marked
>> "EXPERIMENTAL" that appears to have been in the kernel for years.
>
> It is sometimes true for years, although that's not the goal for
> software in mainline.
Because EXPERIMENTAL does not mean "is subject to currently ongoing
experime
Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Apr 2007, Stefan Richter wrote:
>> Robert P. J. Day wrote:
>>> http://fsdev.net/wiki/index.php?title=Maturity_levels
...
>> - Your argument should include what the benefits of exposing
>> DEPRECATED and OBSOLETE as machine-parsable tags are.
(I said that
stefan makes a number of points, all of which i'll add to the wiki
page shortly (if i get ambitious enough), but i'll answer them here as
well.
On Sat, 28 Apr 2007, Stefan Richter wrote:
> Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> > http://fsdev.net/wiki/index.php?title=Maturity_levels
> >
> > rday
> >
>
> A fe
Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> http://fsdev.net/wiki/index.php?title=Maturity_levels
>
> rday
>
A few comments:
- Your argument should include what the benefits of exposing
DEPRECATED and OBSOLETE as machine-parsable tags are.
- "...it's not really experimental but nonetheless claims to be.
12 matches
Mail list logo
