>>>>>In the past, requests to not use old mechanisms have been [er]
>>>>>> >>> declined
>>>
>>>> > 
>>>> > 
>>>> > If such a request is declined, we can reject the patch.  I don't see a
>>>> > problem here.
>>
>>> 
>>> That is deprecation.
>>> 
>>> For us to reject such a patch we must have clearly, explicitly and 
>>> formally identify the mechanism as one that should not be used, and 
>>> recorded the decision in a way that both the patch reviewer and 
>>> contributor can quickly and efficiently access.
> 
> 
> Fine.  All I ask for is to record the deprecation fact somewhere other
> than in the code, until the 3 definitions are converted to use some
> better mechanism.

I've split this patch in two and committed just the TM_FILE stuff.  As 
for the XM_FILE changes (and those 3 definitions), consider that tabled.

It's hard enough getting developers to check one deprecation record - 
the code - without trying to get them to also check a second.

Andrew