On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 2:49 PM, Michael Paquier
<michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 2:00 AM, Vladimir Rusinov <vrusinov@google.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 5:24 AM, Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> As there are two school of thoughts on this thread, keeping your patch
>>> with the compatibility table is the best move for now. Even if we end
>>> up by having a version without aliases, that will be just code to
>>> remove in the final version.
>>
>> Indeed, it is trivial to kill aliases.
>>
>> New version of the patch attached.
>
> The patch still updates a bunch of .po files. Those are normally
> refreshed with the translation updates, so they had better be removed.
> Other than that, the patch looks in good shape to me so switch to
> "Ready for committer".
>
> So, to sum up things on this thread, here are the votes about the use
> of aliases or a pure breakage:
> - No to aliases, shake the world: Stephen, Tom, David F, Vik, Bruce M => 5
> - Yes to aliases: Michael P, Andres, Peter E., Cynthia S, Jim N,
> Vladimir, Simon R, Fujii-san => 8
> If I misunderstood things, please feel free to speak up.
To be pricise, I'd like to avoid the renaming of the functions at all rather
than using aliases.
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao