Removals and deprecation

Justin Obara obara.justin at gmail.com
Mon Jan 30 14:42:07 UTC 2017


It seems that there is no opposition to this proposal, so by lazy consensus
I’m assuming that it has been accepted. I’ve filed FLUID-6121
<https://issues.fluidproject.org/browse/FLUID-6121> for this work. It is
also a blocker for Infusion 2.0, which means, it will have to be complete
before we can tag the Infusion-Docs and officially announce the release.

Please make sure to update the JIRA with all of the relevant deprecations
ASAP.

Thanks
Justin


On January 23, 2017 at 1:48:13 PM, Colin Clark (colinbdclark at gmail.com)
wrote:

Hi Justin,

We chatted about this briefly in the channel. Here's the log in case anyone
else is interested:

https://botbot.me/freenode/fluid-work/2017-01-23/?msg=79810004&page=1

My advice is to keep things simple. We haven't yet announced 2.0 or quite
finished the documentation. The documentation is where people go to find
out about deprecations. We should have a file in our repository that very
briefly describes all the deprecated parts of the API, and also reflect
these with a little note in the documentation if they're listed.

Colin


On Jan 19, 2017, at 4:45 PM, Justin Obara <obara.justin at gmail.com> wrote:

For my work on https://issues.fluidproject.org/browse/FLUID-5536 I'll need
to refactor the textfieldslider to share logic with the new steppers. As
part of this work I figure I could tackle the task we mentioned at the Infusion
2.0 review
<https://wiki.fluidproject.org/display/fluid/Post+Infusion+2.0+Review+Meeting+Notes>
of
removing the jQuery UI version of the sliders.

Unfortunately we didn’t go through and mark it and other things we’d like
to remove/change as deprecated before we tagged Infusion 2.0. According to
semver <http://semver.org/#how-should-i-handle-deprecating-functionality> they
suggest at least 1 minor revision between deprecation and removal.

I’m not 100% sure that this qualifies as something that needs to be
deprecated as opposed to just removed. I’m also not sure how closely we
need to follow this model ( it’s part of the faq and not in the spec ),
although it would definitely be more user friendly if we do.

I’d suggest that we cut a quick “deprecation release” ( e.g. 2.1 ) where we
essentially take a look through and mark everything we think we may want to
remove as deprecated. I don’t think this would require any testing. We
could even make it off of the 2.0 tag.

I’m open to other suggestions as well.

Thanks
Justin
_______________________________________________________
fluid-work mailing list - fluid-work at lists.idrc.ocad.ca
To unsubscribe, change settings or access archives,
see http://lists.idrc.ocad.ca/mailman/listinfo/fluid-work
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.idrc.ocad.ca/pipermail/fluid-work/attachments/20170130/3ee0a4db/attachment.html>


More information about the fluid-work mailing list