Re: class renaming

[Justin Mason <jm...@jmason.org>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


Malte S. Stretz writes:
> On Sunday 26 September 2004 10:42 CET Daniel Quinlan wrote:
> >[...]
> > Do we really need to do this now?  This is not going to significantly
> > help performance, accuracy, or memory usage, is it?
> 
> As much as I loved to have this thing renamed, why didn't we do this 
> *before* we released 3.0?  Or to quote you from bug 3668: "there's *no way* 
> I'd be happy making any of these changes before 4.0.0 ;)"  (Actually, the 
> "no way" is exaggerated but I don't like the idea at this point).

Well, that's a different kettle of fish -- bug 3668 is changing
configuration file paths, this is changing a class name, and ensuring
that backwards compatibility is preserved for that change.

- --j.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh CVS

iD8DBQFBWK8YQTcbUG5Y7woRApXZAJ44uU8QE6pAgG9p6I5BYcsUgnheJACfcrW+
nUz/HYPlrE1qJj3B32nQq7g=
=mbcS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: class renaming

["Malte S. Stretz" <ms...@gmx.net>]

On Tuesday 28 September 2004 02:23 CET Justin Mason wrote:
> Malte S. Stretz writes:
> > On Sunday 26 September 2004 10:42 CET Daniel Quinlan wrote:
> > >[...]
> > > Do we really need to do this now?  This is not going to significantly
> > > help performance, accuracy, or memory usage, is it?
> >
> > As much as I loved to have this thing renamed, why didn't we do this
> > *before* we released 3.0?  Or to quote you from bug 3668: "there's *no
> > way* I'd be happy making any of these changes before 4.0.0 ;)" 
> > (Actually, the "no way" is exaggerated but I don't like the idea at
> > this point).
>
> Well, that's a different kettle of fish -- bug 3668 is changing
> configuration file paths, this is changing a class name, and ensuring
> that backwards compatibility is preserved for that change.

That other bug was also about changing something newly introduced where we 
wouldn't have to watch out for backwards compatilility :)

Whatever, what I wanted to say is that I'm not opposed to the idea itself 
and especially if it has any speed and memory advantages I'm all for it.  
I'm just afraid that such a major change at this early point might brake at 
some unexpected place as much as we try to stay backwards-compatible.

Cheers,
Malte

-- 
[SGT] Simon G. Tatham: "How to Report Bugs Effectively"
      <http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html>
[ESR] Eric S. Raymond: "How To Ask Questions The Smart Way"
      <http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html>