Re: Should we move/copy/symlink ice-9/srfi-8.scm to srfi/srfi-8.scm?

[Neil Jerram]

>>>>> "Marius" == Marius Vollmer <address@hidden> writes:

    Marius> Neil Jerram <address@hidden> writes:
    >> 
    >> The argument sort of parallels the one about having docstrings
    >> as part of the code versus having docstrings stored separately.

    Marius> Hmm, I see it more in parralel to having ChangeLog files
    Marius> and documenting changes in the code itself.  [...]

    Marius> With RELEASE, we have a similar thing.  It allows us to
    Marius> see the whole deprecation state in one place.

    Marius> I would rather keep it the way it is, simply for avoiding
    Marius> changing a tradition that I don't think is broken.

Fair enough; as you say, the current system is working pretty well.

    Marius> What I meant with increasing the awareness of RELEASE is,
    Marius> how can we make sure that all features that are deprecated
    Marius> are properly listed in RELEASE so that we can find them?
    Marius> The procedure is already documented in HACKING, which
    Marius> ought to suffice, no?

I'm not aware of any deprecated features that didn't get listed in
RELEASE - are you?  So the current procedure would seem to be
effective.  If we do find something missing from RELEASE, and no one
can remember when it was deprecated (and CVS is broken so that we
can't find out from CVS :-), then we can be conservative and add it to
the collection of most recent deprecations in RELEASE.

        Neil