From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17884 invoked by alias); 24 Nov 2003 18:25:55 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 17872 invoked from network); 24 Nov 2003 18:25:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 24 Nov 2003 18:25:54 -0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hAOIPrH29670 for ; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 13:25:53 -0500 Received: from pobox.corp.redhat.com (pobox.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.156]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hAOIPrw16688; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 13:25:53 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain (vpn50-29.rdu.redhat.com [172.16.50.29]) by pobox.corp.redhat.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hAOIPqKL011108; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 13:25:53 -0500 Received: (from kev@localhost) by localhost.localdomain (8.11.6/8.11.6) id hAOIPlb09777; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 11:25:47 -0700 Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 18:25:00 -0000 From: Kevin Buettner Message-Id: <1031124182547.ZM9776@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: Daniel Jacobowitz "Re: [commit] Deprecate remaining STREQ uses" (Nov 24, 11:50am) References: <3FC119EB.1060102@gnu.org> <3FC234C0.1000500@gnu.org> <20031124165047.GA2227@nevyn.them.org> To: Daniel Jacobowitz , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [commit] Deprecate remaining STREQ uses MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2003-11/txt/msg00530.txt.bz2 On Nov 24, 11:50am, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > You've been pushing very hard to renaming things to deprecated_foo for > a while now. I think I'm not the only other maintainer who doesn't > understand or approve. It's a lot of work for you; it generates large > patches and source churn; it causes patch rejects and merge errors for > other developers; and the rest of us don't see or agree on the benefit. > Isn't that the sort of thing which should be discussed instead of > implemented? > > Or am I out in a corner by myself here? You are not off in a corner by yourself. I think that renaming interfaces to contain the "deprecated_" prefix has value in some instances, such as when the use of the interface is filled with so much hair that it's risky to attempt to convert it without a great deal of thought. IMO, it should be possible to convert uses of STREQ/STREQN without much risk. I too would like to see discussion over whether a particular interface ought to be deprecated or outright replaced instead of presenting the renaming as a fait accompli. Kevin