Re: Getting libgnome* into shape

[Sander Vesik <Sander Vesik Sun COM>]

On Thu, 30 Aug 2001, George wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 29, 2001 at 03:44:14PM +0200, Martin Baulig wrote:
> > > Another issue is that we already used _DISABLE_DEPRECATED in libgnomeui,
> > > in 1.x and actually even in 2.0.  To deprecate single methods.  So we in fact
> > > had BOTH methods, because libgnome1-compat alone couldn't cut it.
> > 
> > This is actually an argument _for_ moving things into libgnome1-compat.
> > 
> > Because I just realized that we may need the _DISABLE_DEPRECATED macros in libgnomeui
> > in future - to deprecate a GNOME 2.0 method in GNOME 2.1.
> 
> I must say first:
> 
> Happy birthday
> 
> And second:
> 
> What are you smoking?  You can't be serious to suggest that the actual reason
> for not using _DISABLE_DEPRECATED is precisely because it's a good solution
> and we wat to use it.  In any case.  I don't think you've read Owens post.
> There are several levels of deprecated.  You can _DISABLE_DEPRECATED for
> recently deprecated stuff that's on by default for now.  And you can
> _INCLUDE_BROKEN for stuff that is off by default now (as you have to do work
> to use it).  Now I may be daft here but what about doing just that.
> Currently deprecated stuff is
> 

George - relax 8-)

It is quite clear - just as you say later in your mail - that there can
and probably will be two kinds of deprecated. Martin is really saying the
same thing as you, except with moving stuff away to the compat library
instead of redefining it to only exist with INCLUDE_BROKEN. 

Please be rational and resolve the difference.

> George
> 
> -- 
> George <jirka 5z com>
>    The great masses of the people ... will more easily
>    fall victims to a big lie than to a small one.
>                        -- Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", 1933


	Sander

I haven't been vampired. You've been Weatherwaxed.