On Saturday 15 January 2011, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> * Stefano Lattarini wrote on Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 02:23:56PM CET:
> > On Saturday 15 January 2011, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> > > * Stefano Lattarini wrote on Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 12:41:16PM CET:
> > > > , which in
> > > > +turn take precedence over those specified on the command line@footnote{
> > > > +We're painfully aware that this last precedence sounds wrong and is
> > > > +against all the established conventions, but it's due to historical
> > > > +reasons, and presently cannot be easily changed. It might be fixed
> > > > +in a future Automake version though, so try not to rely on it.}.
> > >
> > > No. We already agreed to fixing this, so we should not document the
> > > broken behavior. We should fix it instead.
> > >
> > Wait, IMVHO this fix cannot just be in the next automake release
> > without a clear deprecation of the older behaviour first. The
> > backward-incompatibility would be too great and sharp otherwise.
> >
> > The right thing to do (again IMVHO) is implement the fix in a proper
> > master-based branch, and merge it back into master only after automake
> > 1.12 has been released. WDYT?
>
> Hmm. I would prefer to delay this decision until we have to cross that
> bridge; i.e.:
> - before we release 1.11.2, we should think about deprecation again,
> - when we have a patch to change precedence, we can try to evaluate how
> disruptive it is, and then decide whether it can go in 1.12 or 1.13.
>
> But anyway I don't want behavior that we want to change be documented
> and thus set in stone in the manual now, if it previously hasn't been
> documented. So, can we please decouple these things from the patch
> series we are discussing here?
>
Yes, of course. I'll remove the footnote, which, as you noted, can
always be re-proposed in a follow-up patch.
Regards,
Stefano
