18 Jan
2016
18 Jan
'16
12:16 p.m.
vincent(a)massol.net wrote:
Yes, I meant that legacy jars should give the feeling
that one should
get rid of them.
Marking them with "legacy of version 5.3" (which would mean something
such as "abandadonned at 5.3" would let the installers be aware that the
software they run still needs legacy that is maybe 2 years old.
paul
wonder if this
could not be better controlled so that installers can
> actively get rid of the legacy.
Our current strategy has been to keep legacy forever, see:
http://dev.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Community/DevelopmentPractices#HBackwar…
Our idea was to start not bundling legacy jars by default but we need the EM to support
legacy jars first as otherwise users will see breakages when they install extensions
requiring legacy APIs.
Do you have a different idea?