2 ms·
So you're suggesting they say "we intend to deprecate this feature", but not give a timeline? It seems much more open and fair to give a timeline. That way it'
by brighteyes 11y ago
So you're suggesting they say "we intend to deprecate this feature", but not give a timeline?
It seems much more open and fair to give a timeline. That way it's predictable and lets people plan.
- mook 11y ago> So you're suggesting they say "we intend to deprecate this feature", but not give a timeline? Yes; but that only works if they don't actually _have_ a timeline. Do the necessary work to let people explore options, then evaluate and give a timeline (in the same order as what it took to get all that implemented). The timeline currently is "you have 12 to 18 months, but can't actually start". That's pretty much a recipe for frustration.
- brighteyes 11y agoI guess it's a matter of opinion, but I greatly prefer it they way they did it. Announcing "this is going away" without a timeline would make me worry "when? now? in a month?" Instead, by saying "12 to 18 months", I know this is a long-term thing and I can plan for it. The timeline is very useful information.
- feanaro 11y agoBut the point is that they shouldn't have set the timeline until a replacement was reasonably in place. They could (and should) have said "this is going away 12 to 18 months after we've been able to determine what APIs are needed and implemented them".