Re: A deprecation policy

From: "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
To: "D'Arcy J(dot)M(dot) Cain" <darcy(at)druid(dot)net>, "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: "PG Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: A deprecation policy
Date: 2009-02-11 16:24:44
Message-ID: 4992A76C.EE98.0025.0@wicourts.gov
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

>>> "D'Arcy J.M. Cain" <darcy(at)druid(dot)net> wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 09:47:25 +0200
> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
>> 1. In release N, an interface is declared "obsolete", which means
>> [...]
>> 2. In release N+1, obsolete interfaces are declared "deprecated",
>
> I like the idea but aren't these two terms reversed? In fact, isn't
> "obsolete" your third stage? Certainly "obsolete" suggests that it
> can't be used any longer. I'm not sure what the second stage should
> be called in that case though.

I had a similar reaction to the proposed terminology.

To me:

"Deprecated" means that some other way of doing it is available and
preferred.

"Obsolescent" (or perhaps "in end of life period") indicates that
something is expected to be removed in a future release.

"Obsolete" means it used to work, but doesn't anymore.

-Kevin

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2009-02-11 16:28:09 Re: WIP: hooking parser
Previous Message Tom Lane 2009-02-11 16:22:13 Re: [PATCHES] updated hash functions for postgresql v1