eod status 8-jan-2013

[Kapil Thangavelu]

On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 8:28 AM, Gustavo Niemeyer <
gustavo.niemeyer at canonical.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 10:30 PM, Kapil Thangavelu
> <kapil.thangavelu at canonical.com> wrote:
> > That many semicolons makes me nervous ;-) Just to restate the changes
> then
> > are
> >
> > 1. juju-* relation names are only valid for container require relations.
> >
> > the existing preserved semantics
> >
> > 2. juju-* interfaces or relation names can't be provided by a charm
> > 3. juju-* interfaces can be required by a charm.
> >
> > Sounds good.
>
> +1, plus adding a warn to cases matching (1) saying it is obsolete and
> should be avoided, and after a large enough grace period that we don't
> have to worry about right now, deprecating it with proper handling and
> reporting of errors.
>

The issue with deprecation warnings is that it hits users not nesc the
authors who can fix it. I think it would be odd for example to for someone
deploying an gui in the charm to get hit by a deprecation warning. ie.
Imagine if apps on your phone warned you about deprecated api usage by the
app author.

We can audit the charm universe and file bugs against the charms exhibiting
this problem. We can also classify them as a lint warning in the charm
browser.

cheers,

Kapil
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/juju-dev/attachments/20130205/7598aa7f/attachment.html>