On Sun, 01 Jul 2012 22:07:21 -0000, Robert Collins <email address hidden> wrote:
> A few thoughts: we decided to whine on all legacy publishers in the
> oops codebase, so there is little reason to preserve compat here: when
> someone updates they can just move the publisher to the new config. As
> such, I'd not change the name.
>
> That should make the patch quite a bit smaller.
Indeed.
The reason I didn't do this was firstly out of principle that API breaks
are bad, but primarily because we use this code from a package, so there
may be other users.
I can still do the compatibility break, but it requires auditing other
users, and perhaps a multi-project lockstep change.
Hi Rob,
On Sun, 01 Jul 2012 22:07:21 -0000, Robert Collins <email address hidden> wrote:
> A few thoughts: we decided to whine on all legacy publishers in the
> oops codebase, so there is little reason to preserve compat here: when
> someone updates they can just move the publisher to the new config. As
> such, I'd not change the name.
>
> That should make the patch quite a bit smaller.
Indeed.
The reason I didn't do this was firstly out of principle that API breaks
are bad, but primarily because we use this code from a package, so there
may be other users.
I can still do the compatibility break, but it requires auditing other
users, and perhaps a multi-project lockstep change.
What do you think?
Thanks,
James