Re: Consistency between 'update' and 'switch' APIs

On 03/13/2013 12:37 PM, Branko Čibej wrote:
> Actually, if we're revving an API, it's just as valid to /remove/
> options as it is to add them. IMO.
> The backwards-compat behaviour can be encapsulated in the implementation.
>
> So, for example, we could go ahead and remove the ignore-ancestry option
> from switch.

We could, yes, but then we force ourselves to use a deprecated API to
support the '--ignore-ancestry' command-line option which is hooked to that
API boolean, and which we do wish to keep around precisely because of the
reasons I enumerated (compatibility for folks who were/are used to wielding
the tool differently than its ideal way). I dunno ... that seems kinda
silly to me.

-- 
C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato_at_collab.net>
CollabNet   <>   www.collab.net   <>   Enterprise Cloud Development