Re: undeprecate raw driver.

["Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@mindspring.com>]

On Mon, 14 May 2007, Bob Johnston wrote:

> Alan Cox <alan <at> lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> writes:
>
> > > Why not just use the terms:
> > > * outdated - as a replacement for "deprecated".
> >
> > Because they don't actually mean the same thing ?
>
> "superseded" would probably be a better word, perhaps lacking the
> negative connotations of "deprecated"

except that you *want* the negative connotation associated with the
word "deprecated."  you don't just want to say something's been
superseded.  rather, you want to say that it's not only been
superseded but that you really want people to *stop using it* and move
up to the newer version; otherwise, there is no motivation to upgrade.

i'm just baffled by the resistance to the word "deprecated" since it
represents *exactly* the idea you want to get across here.  its use
in software projects is well-established.  why are some people so put
off by it?

> I'm just trying to propose an alternative because it seems that
> deprecated/obsolete causes some confusion.

no, it does *not* cause confusion.  by now, everyone who's been
following this thread knows *exactly* what those two words are being
proposed to represent.  what's happening is that they don't *like*
that proposed usage.

quite simply, there is no confusion here, there is simply annoying
obstinacy.  there's a difference.

rday

-- 
========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day
Linux Consulting, Training and Annoying Kernel Pedantry
Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA

http://fsdev.net/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page
========================================================================