Re: A proposal for removing obsolete packages

[Richard Stallman]

[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]

  > >   > For example, a package that is declared obsolete during the 
development
  > >   > of Emacs 25 would be moved to obsolete, and a message would be added 
to
  > >   > say that "<package> is obsolete and will be removed in Emacs 27". It
  > >   > couldn't be removed in Emacs 26 because it didn't start Emacs 25 in
  > >   > obsolete.
  > >
  > > I agree.  But we should not be rigit about deleting it in Emacs 27,
  > > either.  Depending on how the feature is used, we might want to save
  > > it longer.  Features used in Lisp code may need to remain longer.

  > Could we instead not move things into obsolete if we didn't think they
  > were removable?

Moving them to 'obsolete' would be done at the first step, according to
that proposal.  The question I am raising is when to delete them entirely.

  > Also, can you give an example of something that is obsolete but
  > shouldn't be removed?  That might help me understand your concern.

defadvice might be a good example.

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation (gnu.org, fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (internethalloffame.org)
Skype: No way! See stallman.org/skype.html.