Re: RFC: dpatch - past, present and future
Stefano Zacchiroli <zack@debian.org> writes:
> On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 10:54:30PM +0200, Gergely Nagy wrote:
>> I don't want to make it spew out deprecation warnings, those are too
>> tempting to ignore. Updating the description, filing wishlist bugs with
>> patches, and providing upgrade paths for the most common cases is The
>> Plan. Along with an entry in debian/NEWS.
>
> Sure, deprecation warning are tempting to ignore. But, in addition to
> the other means you've mentioned, what harm do they do? (Purposefully
> ignoring the harm of bothering whoever reads the build log, as that kind
> of "harm" is pretty much the point of any deprecation warning.)
Simply put: I hate them. Documentation is there to be read, debian/NEWS
included. If one cannot be bothered to do that, to keep up with the
rushing pace of dpatch development, bugs will be filed eventually, and
they'll notice.
And since bugs - hopefully most of them with patches - will be filed
regardless, I do not see the point in adding more noise. It doesn't save
work for anyone but me (and I do not mind going an extra mile to avoid
the deprecation warnings), but creates noise for everyone who happens to
read build logs of a dpatch using package. Potentially for readers who
couldn't care less about the packaging, either (which, I believe, would
be most of the readers).
On the other hand, adding deprecation warnings properly to dpatch isn't
as easy as a few lines, unless I want it very spammy (which I don't), so
in the long run, I'd rather spend a day more on creating patches for
dpatch->quilt conversion than spend an hour adding the deprecation
warnings.
But as always, patches are welcome! ;)
--
|8]
Reply to: