[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Can I remove the bw_... part of the parallel package?

From: Olaf Till
Subject: Re: Can I remove the bw_... part of the parallel package?
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2015 21:15:12 +0100
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)

On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 10:38:08PM -0500, Nicholas Jankowski wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 6:44 PM, Carnë Draug <address@hidden> wrote:
> > On Fri, 20 Feb 2015 18:36:54 +0100, Olaf Till wrote
> >> (using the help-list to reach more people), would anyone object if I
> >> removed the part of the parallel package with the bw_...() functions?
> >> The bw_-part is what I made only by myself a longer time ago, but the
> >> concept is rather esoteric (using an unreliable cluster for longer
> >> single operations with a self-made interface), I doubt that anyone but
> >> myself ever used it, and I even myself didn't use it anymore for a
> >> considerable time.
> >>
> >> I wouldn't even think it's worth depricating it before removal, but
> >> that's OFs policy ...
> >>
> >
> > It is not OF policy, it is just highly recommended in any software.
> > What happens is up to you, the maintainer.  But unless there's any
> > work involved in maintaining the functions for another cycle as
> > deprecated (like they need fixes for new Octave versions), why not
> > keeping them?
> >
> > Carnë
> The conversation reminds me of this:
> Best to deprecate. On the off chance that one user makes use of that
> function, give him a warning before his code breaks.  (think of the
> children)
> nick j.

I've deprecated these functions now.


public key id EAFE0591, e.g. on x-hkp://

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]