Re: [PATCH] Update docs w.r.t. warning and strictness options.

[Stefano Lattarini]

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 address@hidden
> > > > +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