How long to wait before deleting a deprecated method? [closed]

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP











up vote
38
down vote

favorite
5












I am maintaining a public API and have to deprecate a method.



Is there a general rule on how many months/years/versions before the deletion I should deprecate a method?










share|improve this question















closed as primarily opinion-based by gnat, Doc Brown, Laiv, John Wu, BlueRaja - Danny Pflughoeft Nov 21 at 20:56


Many good questions generate some degree of opinion based on expert experience, but answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, rather than facts, references, or specific expertise. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.










  • 27




    The general rule is "keep it around for as long as you and/or your customers need it."
    – Robert Harvey
    Nov 20 at 15:58






  • 15




    Define "public". Free, open source software, with the usual "use at your own risk" disclaimer? Or sold software where a contract exists?
    – Doc Brown
    Nov 20 at 16:58






  • 11




    This very much depends on what market your users are in and whether or not they are paying you money for the API.
    – 17 of 26
    Nov 20 at 17:46






  • 10




    It also depends on why you "have" to depreciate it; is the old way a security risk? Did you just now find a reason why the old way is fundamentally and unfixably unstable due to an unfortunate design decision? Is the old way far slower now than it used to be? Are you running out of memory on your target system (e.g., an embedded system) and you literally cannot fit both APIs on it? Or did you just find a "better" way and you just want to clean out the old code to reduce your maintenance overhead?
    – jrh
    Nov 20 at 20:49







  • 8




    java.io.StringBufferInputStream deprecated since JDK 1.1 (1997?). There's no good or wrong answer to this question. It depends on your needs to provide backward compatibility.
    – Laiv
    Nov 21 at 7:41














up vote
38
down vote

favorite
5












I am maintaining a public API and have to deprecate a method.



Is there a general rule on how many months/years/versions before the deletion I should deprecate a method?










share|improve this question















closed as primarily opinion-based by gnat, Doc Brown, Laiv, John Wu, BlueRaja - Danny Pflughoeft Nov 21 at 20:56


Many good questions generate some degree of opinion based on expert experience, but answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, rather than facts, references, or specific expertise. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.










  • 27




    The general rule is "keep it around for as long as you and/or your customers need it."
    – Robert Harvey
    Nov 20 at 15:58






  • 15




    Define "public". Free, open source software, with the usual "use at your own risk" disclaimer? Or sold software where a contract exists?
    – Doc Brown
    Nov 20 at 16:58






  • 11




    This very much depends on what market your users are in and whether or not they are paying you money for the API.
    – 17 of 26
    Nov 20 at 17:46






  • 10




    It also depends on why you "have" to depreciate it; is the old way a security risk? Did you just now find a reason why the old way is fundamentally and unfixably unstable due to an unfortunate design decision? Is the old way far slower now than it used to be? Are you running out of memory on your target system (e.g., an embedded system) and you literally cannot fit both APIs on it? Or did you just find a "better" way and you just want to clean out the old code to reduce your maintenance overhead?
    – jrh
    Nov 20 at 20:49







  • 8




    java.io.StringBufferInputStream deprecated since JDK 1.1 (1997?). There's no good or wrong answer to this question. It depends on your needs to provide backward compatibility.
    – Laiv
    Nov 21 at 7:41












up vote
38
down vote

favorite
5









up vote
38
down vote

favorite
5






5





I am maintaining a public API and have to deprecate a method.



Is there a general rule on how many months/years/versions before the deletion I should deprecate a method?










share|improve this question















I am maintaining a public API and have to deprecate a method.



Is there a general rule on how many months/years/versions before the deletion I should deprecate a method?







java deprecation java-annotation






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Nov 21 at 9:17









Justin

1348




1348










asked Nov 20 at 15:45









deviDave

1,36251927




1,36251927




closed as primarily opinion-based by gnat, Doc Brown, Laiv, John Wu, BlueRaja - Danny Pflughoeft Nov 21 at 20:56


Many good questions generate some degree of opinion based on expert experience, but answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, rather than facts, references, or specific expertise. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.






closed as primarily opinion-based by gnat, Doc Brown, Laiv, John Wu, BlueRaja - Danny Pflughoeft Nov 21 at 20:56


Many good questions generate some degree of opinion based on expert experience, but answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, rather than facts, references, or specific expertise. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.









  • 27




    The general rule is "keep it around for as long as you and/or your customers need it."
    – Robert Harvey
    Nov 20 at 15:58






  • 15




    Define "public". Free, open source software, with the usual "use at your own risk" disclaimer? Or sold software where a contract exists?
    – Doc Brown
    Nov 20 at 16:58






  • 11




    This very much depends on what market your users are in and whether or not they are paying you money for the API.
    – 17 of 26
    Nov 20 at 17:46






  • 10




    It also depends on why you "have" to depreciate it; is the old way a security risk? Did you just now find a reason why the old way is fundamentally and unfixably unstable due to an unfortunate design decision? Is the old way far slower now than it used to be? Are you running out of memory on your target system (e.g., an embedded system) and you literally cannot fit both APIs on it? Or did you just find a "better" way and you just want to clean out the old code to reduce your maintenance overhead?
    – jrh
    Nov 20 at 20:49







  • 8




    java.io.StringBufferInputStream deprecated since JDK 1.1 (1997?). There's no good or wrong answer to this question. It depends on your needs to provide backward compatibility.
    – Laiv
    Nov 21 at 7:41












  • 27




    The general rule is "keep it around for as long as you and/or your customers need it."
    – Robert Harvey
    Nov 20 at 15:58






  • 15




    Define "public". Free, open source software, with the usual "use at your own risk" disclaimer? Or sold software where a contract exists?
    – Doc Brown
    Nov 20 at 16:58






  • 11




    This very much depends on what market your users are in and whether or not they are paying you money for the API.
    – 17 of 26
    Nov 20 at 17:46






  • 10




    It also depends on why you "have" to depreciate it; is the old way a security risk? Did you just now find a reason why the old way is fundamentally and unfixably unstable due to an unfortunate design decision? Is the old way far slower now than it used to be? Are you running out of memory on your target system (e.g., an embedded system) and you literally cannot fit both APIs on it? Or did you just find a "better" way and you just want to clean out the old code to reduce your maintenance overhead?
    – jrh
    Nov 20 at 20:49







  • 8




    java.io.StringBufferInputStream deprecated since JDK 1.1 (1997?). There's no good or wrong answer to this question. It depends on your needs to provide backward compatibility.
    – Laiv
    Nov 21 at 7:41







27




27




The general rule is "keep it around for as long as you and/or your customers need it."
– Robert Harvey
Nov 20 at 15:58




The general rule is "keep it around for as long as you and/or your customers need it."
– Robert Harvey
Nov 20 at 15:58




15




15




Define "public". Free, open source software, with the usual "use at your own risk" disclaimer? Or sold software where a contract exists?
– Doc Brown
Nov 20 at 16:58




Define "public". Free, open source software, with the usual "use at your own risk" disclaimer? Or sold software where a contract exists?
– Doc Brown
Nov 20 at 16:58




11




11




This very much depends on what market your users are in and whether or not they are paying you money for the API.
– 17 of 26
Nov 20 at 17:46




This very much depends on what market your users are in and whether or not they are paying you money for the API.
– 17 of 26
Nov 20 at 17:46




10




10




It also depends on why you "have" to depreciate it; is the old way a security risk? Did you just now find a reason why the old way is fundamentally and unfixably unstable due to an unfortunate design decision? Is the old way far slower now than it used to be? Are you running out of memory on your target system (e.g., an embedded system) and you literally cannot fit both APIs on it? Or did you just find a "better" way and you just want to clean out the old code to reduce your maintenance overhead?
– jrh
Nov 20 at 20:49





It also depends on why you "have" to depreciate it; is the old way a security risk? Did you just now find a reason why the old way is fundamentally and unfixably unstable due to an unfortunate design decision? Is the old way far slower now than it used to be? Are you running out of memory on your target system (e.g., an embedded system) and you literally cannot fit both APIs on it? Or did you just find a "better" way and you just want to clean out the old code to reduce your maintenance overhead?
– jrh
Nov 20 at 20:49





8




8




java.io.StringBufferInputStream deprecated since JDK 1.1 (1997?). There's no good or wrong answer to this question. It depends on your needs to provide backward compatibility.
– Laiv
Nov 21 at 7:41




java.io.StringBufferInputStream deprecated since JDK 1.1 (1997?). There's no good or wrong answer to this question. It depends on your needs to provide backward compatibility.
– Laiv
Nov 21 at 7:41










8 Answers
8






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
52
down vote













At minimum, you should keep deprecated methods in one version before removing them which seems kind of obvious when I write it out. I don't think there is a maximum time but if you never actually remove them, deprecation becomes a little pointless.



Major version releases are a good time to remove deprecated methods. Minor releases should typically not contain breaking changes. As cHao has noted in the comments, deprecation doesn't necessarily imply that there will be an eventual removal so if you plan to remove things after deprecation, you should explicitly note that and provide some guidance on the timeline.






share|improve this answer


















  • 58




    Deprecation isn't necessarily about eventual removal, so deprecation without removal isn't pointless (and is often the right thing if backward compatibility is important). Often the point is nothing more than "we have a better way now, so you shouldn't do it this way anymore".
    – cHao
    Nov 20 at 19:41






  • 9




    @cHao If something is deprecated, you should not expect it to continue to be there. I suppose if you want to make a special statement in your project that states you will not remove deprecated functionality, that's fine but otherwise, yes it is implied that there will be eventual removal. The point I am making is that if you don't maintain some sort of rigor around this, people may come to believe that it won't ever happen. This has come up with recent versions of Java where functionality that has been deprecated for a decade or more is now being removed.
    – JimmyJames
    Nov 20 at 20:24






  • 6




    @cHao I'd rather a project remove its deprecated functionality. Not only is there the benefit of users actually being motivated to switch, but it also prevents the deprecated interface from interfering with other improvements.
    – jpmc26
    Nov 20 at 21:19







  • 9




    @cHao It's a context sensitive thing. In my experience the policy of deprecation is clear. It's clearly stated that deprecated functionality will be removed at some point in the future. Often deprecated functionality has issues making it problematic for use and it's not simply a matter of whether you value backward compatibility or not.
    – JimmyJames
    Nov 20 at 21:31






  • 6




    I'm going to chime in to agree with @JimmyJames that deprecation clearly implies impending removal. The deprecation period exists as a way of providing temporary backwards compatibility so the consumers can migrate to the newer functionality. There should be absolutely no expectation that the deprecated functionality will remain indefinitely. If the old functionality is going to remain, there's no reason to deprecate it.
    – Eric King
    Nov 20 at 23:09

















up vote
17
down vote













This depends solely on what kind of stability guarantees you gave to your users, and how much pain you want to cause for your users.



Ideally, your API uses semver so that any breaking change causes the major version number to be incremented. In practice, it is desirable to do this almost never. If your API is installed via some package manager, you may want to create a new package name after a breaking change so that a simple upgrade doesn't cause conflicts (e.g. myapi2 v2.123.4 vs myapi3 v3.2.1). That may be unnecessary if your package manager supports tighter version dependencies (e.g. a dependency specification like ~v2.120 that does not include v3.*), but different package names have the advantage that incompatible versions can be used side by side very easily. Even when using semver, it can be sensible to have a deprecation period.



Semver is not always applicable. Then it is more important to communicate a clear stability policy. For example:



  • Experimental features may be removed without notice.

  • Features may be removed for security reasons at any time.

  • Other features will only be removed

    • … after having been deprecated in a released version

    • … where that version is at least three months old

    • … and will be marked by a bump in the major version.


Such policies work particularly well when you have regular releases so that there is a clear deprecation period, e.g. one year.



Aside from marking any parts of the API as deprecated, you should make the deprecation widely known. For example:



  • Have a section in your changelog about future directions and deprecations.

  • Broadcast your intention to deprecate before you perform the deprecation, and listen into the community to see if there are substantial objections.

  • Communicate what benefits will come from these changes. Depending on your user base, newsletters, presentations, blog posts, or press releases might be appropriate media. Having a spin “we are creating an awesome new feature! (which requires this widely used old feature to be removed)” is a bit less frustrating than removing a feature without context.

As for the exact deprecation period to choose, first look whether you have to honor any support contracts with your users. Such contracts may require you to maintain compatibility for some period. If not, consider any downstream impact. Try to change less rapidly than downstream users so that they can go through a deprecation cycle of their own. Downstream users will take some time to adapt to your changes, so you should never have a deprecation period shorter than a month.






share|improve this answer
















  • 3




    Downvoted because of this: Ideally, your API uses semver so that any breaking change causes the major version number to be incremented. In practice, it is desirable to do this almost never. What is the point of using semver to indicate breaking changes if you're following that by saying you should never introduce a new major version?
    – mrsmn
    Nov 21 at 10:24






  • 6




    Is it really a good idea to rename the package if there is a major change? That's what version numbers are for. I hate when they also rename them, it really messes up Maven dependency management.
    – AJPerez
    Nov 21 at 10:36










  • @AJPerez I understand that's not ideal, but it can prevent conflicts in large dependency graphs with transitive dependencies: I depend on libfoo which depends on libconflict v1.2.3, and I also depend on libbar which depends on libconflict v2.3.4. Then, I cannot select any libconflict version that satisfies all dependencies – unless libconflict and libconflict2 are distinct packages. Specifically for Java, such renaming is annoying b/c I have to change all imports. Fortunately, Java 9 (modules) supports using conflicting versions.
    – amon
    Nov 21 at 11:53






  • 1




    @mrsmn Breaking changes are annoying however you package or name them. Semver only addresses a small part of this problem: being able to tell whether an upgrade will break anything. But once you have a breaking change, you still have to expend effort to accommodate this change. Therefore, it's better if APIs try very hard to be as stable as possible. Ideally they are designed in a way so that they can be extended without breaking backwards compatibility.
    – amon
    Nov 21 at 11:58










  • @AJPerez yes. Yes it is good. People screw up the versioning all the time. Bug fixes (presumed x.x.x++) often are breaking (presumed x++.x.x). As amon points out you (and I do mean you as the user of the dependency) have a problem that you have to fix. I know my code works with foo 3.2.1, it may work with foo 3.3.0. I know my code works with foo, it may work with foo-2. I use semver because popularity and it doesn't hurt per se, but it really isn't clear to me that it buys you all that much.
    – Jared Smith
    Nov 21 at 12:48

















up vote
14
down vote













Ideally, you would want to wait until no one is using the deprecated method anymore. Considering you're using a public API, that's easy to track, but you might end up waiting a very long time.



in 2015, Google had a similar issue with the stlport API on their Android OS. They had deprecated it and wanted to remove it, but tons of apps were still using it. They found a clever solution:



enter image description here



Essentially, they added an 8 second sleep() during the bootup of any app which still used the API with an appropriate log message for the developers. A month later, they doubled it to 16 seconds. then another month later, they could safely remove the API interface because no one was left using it.



This can be a very effective way of doing this. The only real issue is if your API is very old and has actively used consumers that are no longer actively supported. Unfortunately, you probably won't be able to fix such consumers yourself, but at that point you can't really do much more than delete the method and break the consumer.






share|improve this answer
















  • 4




    Cute. Very cute.
    – David Hammen
    Nov 21 at 15:19

















up vote
8
down vote













The minimum time for providing deprecated methods depends on the development cycles of programs using your API. As a ballpark figure, 1 year should be enough.



As for the maximum time before you have to remove deprecated methods, I'd argue that there is no such thing. No matter how long you wait, removing a deprecated method will always break something. Some programs using your deprecated API are not actively maintained, and breaking compatibility will mean the end of life for such programs.



I suggest you remove deprecated methods when you gain something from the removal:



  • a bug is detected that affects deprecated methods specifically

  • you're about to refactor the code and maintaining deprecated methods would require significant effort

  • you're optimizing the internal structure of your library, and deprecated methods don't fit in anymore.

Removing deprecated methods just because they were deprecated for X months/years or because you're releasing a new version amounts to arbitrarily harming compatibility with no good reason.






share|improve this answer





























    up vote
    7
    down vote













    First you should consider whether you want deprecated or obsolete.



    Deprecated should be used for methods that are in some way harmful: security, performance, incorrect results. You want to get rid of them relatively quickly, no more than 2 major version and gone by the 3rd. For significant enough problems, deprecated may be deleted in the next minor version.



    Obsolete is for things that are less useful for some reason, for instance returns less information or doesn’t work as well, doesn’t include as many options and so forth. These can hang around indefinitely, but should at a minimum be present in the next major version.






    share|improve this answer




















    • I'd say a method giving incorrect results or harming security should be either disabled immediately, or fixed. A method with bad performance can hang around indefinitely, so long as its performance is acceptable for some users.
      – Dmitry Grigoryev
      Nov 22 at 13:25










    • @DmitryGrigoryev: a single minor version is pretty close to immediately.
      – jmoreno
      Nov 22 at 17:14

















    up vote
    4
    down vote













    The answer depends on what sort of service you are giving to your customers.



    On one end of the extreme, there are mistakes in Windows.h from the Win 3.1 era that propagated for two decades because Microsoft believed very strongly in backwards compatibility.



    On the other end of the spectrum, many web-apps remove features without even providing a deprecation warning.



    How much your clients are paying for your software often matters, as does their line of work. Research scientists are typically more willing to accept deprecation as part of the march of progress than, say, bankers or the FAA.



    I worked for a company developing software for internal use. I supported many groups over the years. One group had a "never remove any feature" mentality. They needed the ability to go back to files 5-10 years ago and do analysis on them on timescales too fast to get developers to put features back in. One group's attitude was "make sure all the deprecations are in the patch notes, so we can find them later." In the middle, we had one group whose rule was "Features must be deprecated for at least 1 version with a printed warning if they are used before removing them." That group had a test suite that covered the features they needed. Whenever we released a new version, they quick ran their test suite against it to see if any of the deprecations gave them trouble.






    share|improve this answer



























      up vote
      4
      down vote














      I am maintaining a public API and have to deprecate a method.




      Why do you need to do this? Is it because there’s a new shiny way to do things, so the old method is now discouraged, but still works fine? Or does the old method actually need to go because things have fundamentally changed?



      • If the old method isn’t causing any actual problems, and can stick
        around, then it may as well. If ain’t broke, don’t fix it. Do you
        really need to remove it? Maybe mark it as obsolete, and include a
        note in the documentation that another method might be more
        efficient, or whatever, but it’s probably fine to leave it in place.


      • If the old method really does need to go, because it’s causing you
        maintenance headaches, or because it simply no longer makes any sense
        due to other changes, then monitor its usage and communicate the
        deprecation clearly to clients. Give them a clear date after which
        the method will be removed. (Ideally, don’t actually remove it
        immediately on this date: wait until no one is still using it before
        actually removing it. It may need to go sooner, if it’s really
        causing problems, but at least wait for the usage to drop a little.)


      • If the old method is causing security problems, you may need to move
        faster than that, possibly even removing it without warning, but you
        should document this change somewhere very visible, and also return
        sensible messages to clients which attempt to use the old method.


      (The second two bullet points are well covered in other answers, but I think the first one is new.)






      share|improve this answer



























        up vote
        1
        down vote













        For a public project, only remove it if and only if you need to.



        When you do unnecessary API removal, you're costing money for companies and contractors in such a way that you can't even calculate due to costly churn.



        Want companies and independent programmers to stop using your project? Break their stuff enough times when you're not essential and you'll be in that boat in no time.



        deprecation != eventual_removal. If an API is dangerous, you remove it. If it's just old, leave it and document its replacement.






        share|improve this answer



























          8 Answers
          8






          active

          oldest

          votes








          8 Answers
          8






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes








          up vote
          52
          down vote













          At minimum, you should keep deprecated methods in one version before removing them which seems kind of obvious when I write it out. I don't think there is a maximum time but if you never actually remove them, deprecation becomes a little pointless.



          Major version releases are a good time to remove deprecated methods. Minor releases should typically not contain breaking changes. As cHao has noted in the comments, deprecation doesn't necessarily imply that there will be an eventual removal so if you plan to remove things after deprecation, you should explicitly note that and provide some guidance on the timeline.






          share|improve this answer


















          • 58




            Deprecation isn't necessarily about eventual removal, so deprecation without removal isn't pointless (and is often the right thing if backward compatibility is important). Often the point is nothing more than "we have a better way now, so you shouldn't do it this way anymore".
            – cHao
            Nov 20 at 19:41






          • 9




            @cHao If something is deprecated, you should not expect it to continue to be there. I suppose if you want to make a special statement in your project that states you will not remove deprecated functionality, that's fine but otherwise, yes it is implied that there will be eventual removal. The point I am making is that if you don't maintain some sort of rigor around this, people may come to believe that it won't ever happen. This has come up with recent versions of Java where functionality that has been deprecated for a decade or more is now being removed.
            – JimmyJames
            Nov 20 at 20:24






          • 6




            @cHao I'd rather a project remove its deprecated functionality. Not only is there the benefit of users actually being motivated to switch, but it also prevents the deprecated interface from interfering with other improvements.
            – jpmc26
            Nov 20 at 21:19







          • 9




            @cHao It's a context sensitive thing. In my experience the policy of deprecation is clear. It's clearly stated that deprecated functionality will be removed at some point in the future. Often deprecated functionality has issues making it problematic for use and it's not simply a matter of whether you value backward compatibility or not.
            – JimmyJames
            Nov 20 at 21:31






          • 6




            I'm going to chime in to agree with @JimmyJames that deprecation clearly implies impending removal. The deprecation period exists as a way of providing temporary backwards compatibility so the consumers can migrate to the newer functionality. There should be absolutely no expectation that the deprecated functionality will remain indefinitely. If the old functionality is going to remain, there's no reason to deprecate it.
            – Eric King
            Nov 20 at 23:09














          up vote
          52
          down vote













          At minimum, you should keep deprecated methods in one version before removing them which seems kind of obvious when I write it out. I don't think there is a maximum time but if you never actually remove them, deprecation becomes a little pointless.



          Major version releases are a good time to remove deprecated methods. Minor releases should typically not contain breaking changes. As cHao has noted in the comments, deprecation doesn't necessarily imply that there will be an eventual removal so if you plan to remove things after deprecation, you should explicitly note that and provide some guidance on the timeline.






          share|improve this answer


















          • 58




            Deprecation isn't necessarily about eventual removal, so deprecation without removal isn't pointless (and is often the right thing if backward compatibility is important). Often the point is nothing more than "we have a better way now, so you shouldn't do it this way anymore".
            – cHao
            Nov 20 at 19:41






          • 9




            @cHao If something is deprecated, you should not expect it to continue to be there. I suppose if you want to make a special statement in your project that states you will not remove deprecated functionality, that's fine but otherwise, yes it is implied that there will be eventual removal. The point I am making is that if you don't maintain some sort of rigor around this, people may come to believe that it won't ever happen. This has come up with recent versions of Java where functionality that has been deprecated for a decade or more is now being removed.
            – JimmyJames
            Nov 20 at 20:24






          • 6




            @cHao I'd rather a project remove its deprecated functionality. Not only is there the benefit of users actually being motivated to switch, but it also prevents the deprecated interface from interfering with other improvements.
            – jpmc26
            Nov 20 at 21:19







          • 9




            @cHao It's a context sensitive thing. In my experience the policy of deprecation is clear. It's clearly stated that deprecated functionality will be removed at some point in the future. Often deprecated functionality has issues making it problematic for use and it's not simply a matter of whether you value backward compatibility or not.
            – JimmyJames
            Nov 20 at 21:31






          • 6




            I'm going to chime in to agree with @JimmyJames that deprecation clearly implies impending removal. The deprecation period exists as a way of providing temporary backwards compatibility so the consumers can migrate to the newer functionality. There should be absolutely no expectation that the deprecated functionality will remain indefinitely. If the old functionality is going to remain, there's no reason to deprecate it.
            – Eric King
            Nov 20 at 23:09












          up vote
          52
          down vote










          up vote
          52
          down vote









          At minimum, you should keep deprecated methods in one version before removing them which seems kind of obvious when I write it out. I don't think there is a maximum time but if you never actually remove them, deprecation becomes a little pointless.



          Major version releases are a good time to remove deprecated methods. Minor releases should typically not contain breaking changes. As cHao has noted in the comments, deprecation doesn't necessarily imply that there will be an eventual removal so if you plan to remove things after deprecation, you should explicitly note that and provide some guidance on the timeline.






          share|improve this answer














          At minimum, you should keep deprecated methods in one version before removing them which seems kind of obvious when I write it out. I don't think there is a maximum time but if you never actually remove them, deprecation becomes a little pointless.



          Major version releases are a good time to remove deprecated methods. Minor releases should typically not contain breaking changes. As cHao has noted in the comments, deprecation doesn't necessarily imply that there will be an eventual removal so if you plan to remove things after deprecation, you should explicitly note that and provide some guidance on the timeline.







          share|improve this answer














          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer








          edited Nov 21 at 15:32

























          answered Nov 20 at 16:03









          JimmyJames

          12.8k2049




          12.8k2049







          • 58




            Deprecation isn't necessarily about eventual removal, so deprecation without removal isn't pointless (and is often the right thing if backward compatibility is important). Often the point is nothing more than "we have a better way now, so you shouldn't do it this way anymore".
            – cHao
            Nov 20 at 19:41






          • 9




            @cHao If something is deprecated, you should not expect it to continue to be there. I suppose if you want to make a special statement in your project that states you will not remove deprecated functionality, that's fine but otherwise, yes it is implied that there will be eventual removal. The point I am making is that if you don't maintain some sort of rigor around this, people may come to believe that it won't ever happen. This has come up with recent versions of Java where functionality that has been deprecated for a decade or more is now being removed.
            – JimmyJames
            Nov 20 at 20:24






          • 6




            @cHao I'd rather a project remove its deprecated functionality. Not only is there the benefit of users actually being motivated to switch, but it also prevents the deprecated interface from interfering with other improvements.
            – jpmc26
            Nov 20 at 21:19







          • 9




            @cHao It's a context sensitive thing. In my experience the policy of deprecation is clear. It's clearly stated that deprecated functionality will be removed at some point in the future. Often deprecated functionality has issues making it problematic for use and it's not simply a matter of whether you value backward compatibility or not.
            – JimmyJames
            Nov 20 at 21:31






          • 6




            I'm going to chime in to agree with @JimmyJames that deprecation clearly implies impending removal. The deprecation period exists as a way of providing temporary backwards compatibility so the consumers can migrate to the newer functionality. There should be absolutely no expectation that the deprecated functionality will remain indefinitely. If the old functionality is going to remain, there's no reason to deprecate it.
            – Eric King
            Nov 20 at 23:09












          • 58




            Deprecation isn't necessarily about eventual removal, so deprecation without removal isn't pointless (and is often the right thing if backward compatibility is important). Often the point is nothing more than "we have a better way now, so you shouldn't do it this way anymore".
            – cHao
            Nov 20 at 19:41






          • 9




            @cHao If something is deprecated, you should not expect it to continue to be there. I suppose if you want to make a special statement in your project that states you will not remove deprecated functionality, that's fine but otherwise, yes it is implied that there will be eventual removal. The point I am making is that if you don't maintain some sort of rigor around this, people may come to believe that it won't ever happen. This has come up with recent versions of Java where functionality that has been deprecated for a decade or more is now being removed.
            – JimmyJames
            Nov 20 at 20:24






          • 6




            @cHao I'd rather a project remove its deprecated functionality. Not only is there the benefit of users actually being motivated to switch, but it also prevents the deprecated interface from interfering with other improvements.
            – jpmc26
            Nov 20 at 21:19







          • 9




            @cHao It's a context sensitive thing. In my experience the policy of deprecation is clear. It's clearly stated that deprecated functionality will be removed at some point in the future. Often deprecated functionality has issues making it problematic for use and it's not simply a matter of whether you value backward compatibility or not.
            – JimmyJames
            Nov 20 at 21:31






          • 6




            I'm going to chime in to agree with @JimmyJames that deprecation clearly implies impending removal. The deprecation period exists as a way of providing temporary backwards compatibility so the consumers can migrate to the newer functionality. There should be absolutely no expectation that the deprecated functionality will remain indefinitely. If the old functionality is going to remain, there's no reason to deprecate it.
            – Eric King
            Nov 20 at 23:09







          58




          58




          Deprecation isn't necessarily about eventual removal, so deprecation without removal isn't pointless (and is often the right thing if backward compatibility is important). Often the point is nothing more than "we have a better way now, so you shouldn't do it this way anymore".
          – cHao
          Nov 20 at 19:41




          Deprecation isn't necessarily about eventual removal, so deprecation without removal isn't pointless (and is often the right thing if backward compatibility is important). Often the point is nothing more than "we have a better way now, so you shouldn't do it this way anymore".
          – cHao
          Nov 20 at 19:41




          9




          9




          @cHao If something is deprecated, you should not expect it to continue to be there. I suppose if you want to make a special statement in your project that states you will not remove deprecated functionality, that's fine but otherwise, yes it is implied that there will be eventual removal. The point I am making is that if you don't maintain some sort of rigor around this, people may come to believe that it won't ever happen. This has come up with recent versions of Java where functionality that has been deprecated for a decade or more is now being removed.
          – JimmyJames
          Nov 20 at 20:24




          @cHao If something is deprecated, you should not expect it to continue to be there. I suppose if you want to make a special statement in your project that states you will not remove deprecated functionality, that's fine but otherwise, yes it is implied that there will be eventual removal. The point I am making is that if you don't maintain some sort of rigor around this, people may come to believe that it won't ever happen. This has come up with recent versions of Java where functionality that has been deprecated for a decade or more is now being removed.
          – JimmyJames
          Nov 20 at 20:24




          6




          6




          @cHao I'd rather a project remove its deprecated functionality. Not only is there the benefit of users actually being motivated to switch, but it also prevents the deprecated interface from interfering with other improvements.
          – jpmc26
          Nov 20 at 21:19





          @cHao I'd rather a project remove its deprecated functionality. Not only is there the benefit of users actually being motivated to switch, but it also prevents the deprecated interface from interfering with other improvements.
          – jpmc26
          Nov 20 at 21:19





          9




          9




          @cHao It's a context sensitive thing. In my experience the policy of deprecation is clear. It's clearly stated that deprecated functionality will be removed at some point in the future. Often deprecated functionality has issues making it problematic for use and it's not simply a matter of whether you value backward compatibility or not.
          – JimmyJames
          Nov 20 at 21:31




          @cHao It's a context sensitive thing. In my experience the policy of deprecation is clear. It's clearly stated that deprecated functionality will be removed at some point in the future. Often deprecated functionality has issues making it problematic for use and it's not simply a matter of whether you value backward compatibility or not.
          – JimmyJames
          Nov 20 at 21:31




          6




          6




          I'm going to chime in to agree with @JimmyJames that deprecation clearly implies impending removal. The deprecation period exists as a way of providing temporary backwards compatibility so the consumers can migrate to the newer functionality. There should be absolutely no expectation that the deprecated functionality will remain indefinitely. If the old functionality is going to remain, there's no reason to deprecate it.
          – Eric King
          Nov 20 at 23:09




          I'm going to chime in to agree with @JimmyJames that deprecation clearly implies impending removal. The deprecation period exists as a way of providing temporary backwards compatibility so the consumers can migrate to the newer functionality. There should be absolutely no expectation that the deprecated functionality will remain indefinitely. If the old functionality is going to remain, there's no reason to deprecate it.
          – Eric King
          Nov 20 at 23:09












          up vote
          17
          down vote













          This depends solely on what kind of stability guarantees you gave to your users, and how much pain you want to cause for your users.



          Ideally, your API uses semver so that any breaking change causes the major version number to be incremented. In practice, it is desirable to do this almost never. If your API is installed via some package manager, you may want to create a new package name after a breaking change so that a simple upgrade doesn't cause conflicts (e.g. myapi2 v2.123.4 vs myapi3 v3.2.1). That may be unnecessary if your package manager supports tighter version dependencies (e.g. a dependency specification like ~v2.120 that does not include v3.*), but different package names have the advantage that incompatible versions can be used side by side very easily. Even when using semver, it can be sensible to have a deprecation period.



          Semver is not always applicable. Then it is more important to communicate a clear stability policy. For example:



          • Experimental features may be removed without notice.

          • Features may be removed for security reasons at any time.

          • Other features will only be removed

            • … after having been deprecated in a released version

            • … where that version is at least three months old

            • … and will be marked by a bump in the major version.


          Such policies work particularly well when you have regular releases so that there is a clear deprecation period, e.g. one year.



          Aside from marking any parts of the API as deprecated, you should make the deprecation widely known. For example:



          • Have a section in your changelog about future directions and deprecations.

          • Broadcast your intention to deprecate before you perform the deprecation, and listen into the community to see if there are substantial objections.

          • Communicate what benefits will come from these changes. Depending on your user base, newsletters, presentations, blog posts, or press releases might be appropriate media. Having a spin “we are creating an awesome new feature! (which requires this widely used old feature to be removed)” is a bit less frustrating than removing a feature without context.

          As for the exact deprecation period to choose, first look whether you have to honor any support contracts with your users. Such contracts may require you to maintain compatibility for some period. If not, consider any downstream impact. Try to change less rapidly than downstream users so that they can go through a deprecation cycle of their own. Downstream users will take some time to adapt to your changes, so you should never have a deprecation period shorter than a month.






          share|improve this answer
















          • 3




            Downvoted because of this: Ideally, your API uses semver so that any breaking change causes the major version number to be incremented. In practice, it is desirable to do this almost never. What is the point of using semver to indicate breaking changes if you're following that by saying you should never introduce a new major version?
            – mrsmn
            Nov 21 at 10:24






          • 6




            Is it really a good idea to rename the package if there is a major change? That's what version numbers are for. I hate when they also rename them, it really messes up Maven dependency management.
            – AJPerez
            Nov 21 at 10:36










          • @AJPerez I understand that's not ideal, but it can prevent conflicts in large dependency graphs with transitive dependencies: I depend on libfoo which depends on libconflict v1.2.3, and I also depend on libbar which depends on libconflict v2.3.4. Then, I cannot select any libconflict version that satisfies all dependencies – unless libconflict and libconflict2 are distinct packages. Specifically for Java, such renaming is annoying b/c I have to change all imports. Fortunately, Java 9 (modules) supports using conflicting versions.
            – amon
            Nov 21 at 11:53






          • 1




            @mrsmn Breaking changes are annoying however you package or name them. Semver only addresses a small part of this problem: being able to tell whether an upgrade will break anything. But once you have a breaking change, you still have to expend effort to accommodate this change. Therefore, it's better if APIs try very hard to be as stable as possible. Ideally they are designed in a way so that they can be extended without breaking backwards compatibility.
            – amon
            Nov 21 at 11:58










          • @AJPerez yes. Yes it is good. People screw up the versioning all the time. Bug fixes (presumed x.x.x++) often are breaking (presumed x++.x.x). As amon points out you (and I do mean you as the user of the dependency) have a problem that you have to fix. I know my code works with foo 3.2.1, it may work with foo 3.3.0. I know my code works with foo, it may work with foo-2. I use semver because popularity and it doesn't hurt per se, but it really isn't clear to me that it buys you all that much.
            – Jared Smith
            Nov 21 at 12:48














          up vote
          17
          down vote













          This depends solely on what kind of stability guarantees you gave to your users, and how much pain you want to cause for your users.



          Ideally, your API uses semver so that any breaking change causes the major version number to be incremented. In practice, it is desirable to do this almost never. If your API is installed via some package manager, you may want to create a new package name after a breaking change so that a simple upgrade doesn't cause conflicts (e.g. myapi2 v2.123.4 vs myapi3 v3.2.1). That may be unnecessary if your package manager supports tighter version dependencies (e.g. a dependency specification like ~v2.120 that does not include v3.*), but different package names have the advantage that incompatible versions can be used side by side very easily. Even when using semver, it can be sensible to have a deprecation period.



          Semver is not always applicable. Then it is more important to communicate a clear stability policy. For example:



          • Experimental features may be removed without notice.

          • Features may be removed for security reasons at any time.

          • Other features will only be removed

            • … after having been deprecated in a released version

            • … where that version is at least three months old

            • … and will be marked by a bump in the major version.


          Such policies work particularly well when you have regular releases so that there is a clear deprecation period, e.g. one year.



          Aside from marking any parts of the API as deprecated, you should make the deprecation widely known. For example:



          • Have a section in your changelog about future directions and deprecations.

          • Broadcast your intention to deprecate before you perform the deprecation, and listen into the community to see if there are substantial objections.

          • Communicate what benefits will come from these changes. Depending on your user base, newsletters, presentations, blog posts, or press releases might be appropriate media. Having a spin “we are creating an awesome new feature! (which requires this widely used old feature to be removed)” is a bit less frustrating than removing a feature without context.

          As for the exact deprecation period to choose, first look whether you have to honor any support contracts with your users. Such contracts may require you to maintain compatibility for some period. If not, consider any downstream impact. Try to change less rapidly than downstream users so that they can go through a deprecation cycle of their own. Downstream users will take some time to adapt to your changes, so you should never have a deprecation period shorter than a month.






          share|improve this answer
















          • 3




            Downvoted because of this: Ideally, your API uses semver so that any breaking change causes the major version number to be incremented. In practice, it is desirable to do this almost never. What is the point of using semver to indicate breaking changes if you're following that by saying you should never introduce a new major version?
            – mrsmn
            Nov 21 at 10:24






          • 6




            Is it really a good idea to rename the package if there is a major change? That's what version numbers are for. I hate when they also rename them, it really messes up Maven dependency management.
            – AJPerez
            Nov 21 at 10:36










          • @AJPerez I understand that's not ideal, but it can prevent conflicts in large dependency graphs with transitive dependencies: I depend on libfoo which depends on libconflict v1.2.3, and I also depend on libbar which depends on libconflict v2.3.4. Then, I cannot select any libconflict version that satisfies all dependencies – unless libconflict and libconflict2 are distinct packages. Specifically for Java, such renaming is annoying b/c I have to change all imports. Fortunately, Java 9 (modules) supports using conflicting versions.
            – amon
            Nov 21 at 11:53






          • 1




            @mrsmn Breaking changes are annoying however you package or name them. Semver only addresses a small part of this problem: being able to tell whether an upgrade will break anything. But once you have a breaking change, you still have to expend effort to accommodate this change. Therefore, it's better if APIs try very hard to be as stable as possible. Ideally they are designed in a way so that they can be extended without breaking backwards compatibility.
            – amon
            Nov 21 at 11:58










          • @AJPerez yes. Yes it is good. People screw up the versioning all the time. Bug fixes (presumed x.x.x++) often are breaking (presumed x++.x.x). As amon points out you (and I do mean you as the user of the dependency) have a problem that you have to fix. I know my code works with foo 3.2.1, it may work with foo 3.3.0. I know my code works with foo, it may work with foo-2. I use semver because popularity and it doesn't hurt per se, but it really isn't clear to me that it buys you all that much.
            – Jared Smith
            Nov 21 at 12:48












          up vote
          17
          down vote










          up vote
          17
          down vote









          This depends solely on what kind of stability guarantees you gave to your users, and how much pain you want to cause for your users.



          Ideally, your API uses semver so that any breaking change causes the major version number to be incremented. In practice, it is desirable to do this almost never. If your API is installed via some package manager, you may want to create a new package name after a breaking change so that a simple upgrade doesn't cause conflicts (e.g. myapi2 v2.123.4 vs myapi3 v3.2.1). That may be unnecessary if your package manager supports tighter version dependencies (e.g. a dependency specification like ~v2.120 that does not include v3.*), but different package names have the advantage that incompatible versions can be used side by side very easily. Even when using semver, it can be sensible to have a deprecation period.



          Semver is not always applicable. Then it is more important to communicate a clear stability policy. For example:



          • Experimental features may be removed without notice.

          • Features may be removed for security reasons at any time.

          • Other features will only be removed

            • … after having been deprecated in a released version

            • … where that version is at least three months old

            • … and will be marked by a bump in the major version.


          Such policies work particularly well when you have regular releases so that there is a clear deprecation period, e.g. one year.



          Aside from marking any parts of the API as deprecated, you should make the deprecation widely known. For example:



          • Have a section in your changelog about future directions and deprecations.

          • Broadcast your intention to deprecate before you perform the deprecation, and listen into the community to see if there are substantial objections.

          • Communicate what benefits will come from these changes. Depending on your user base, newsletters, presentations, blog posts, or press releases might be appropriate media. Having a spin “we are creating an awesome new feature! (which requires this widely used old feature to be removed)” is a bit less frustrating than removing a feature without context.

          As for the exact deprecation period to choose, first look whether you have to honor any support contracts with your users. Such contracts may require you to maintain compatibility for some period. If not, consider any downstream impact. Try to change less rapidly than downstream users so that they can go through a deprecation cycle of their own. Downstream users will take some time to adapt to your changes, so you should never have a deprecation period shorter than a month.






          share|improve this answer












          This depends solely on what kind of stability guarantees you gave to your users, and how much pain you want to cause for your users.



          Ideally, your API uses semver so that any breaking change causes the major version number to be incremented. In practice, it is desirable to do this almost never. If your API is installed via some package manager, you may want to create a new package name after a breaking change so that a simple upgrade doesn't cause conflicts (e.g. myapi2 v2.123.4 vs myapi3 v3.2.1). That may be unnecessary if your package manager supports tighter version dependencies (e.g. a dependency specification like ~v2.120 that does not include v3.*), but different package names have the advantage that incompatible versions can be used side by side very easily. Even when using semver, it can be sensible to have a deprecation period.



          Semver is not always applicable. Then it is more important to communicate a clear stability policy. For example:



          • Experimental features may be removed without notice.

          • Features may be removed for security reasons at any time.

          • Other features will only be removed

            • … after having been deprecated in a released version

            • … where that version is at least three months old

            • … and will be marked by a bump in the major version.


          Such policies work particularly well when you have regular releases so that there is a clear deprecation period, e.g. one year.



          Aside from marking any parts of the API as deprecated, you should make the deprecation widely known. For example:



          • Have a section in your changelog about future directions and deprecations.

          • Broadcast your intention to deprecate before you perform the deprecation, and listen into the community to see if there are substantial objections.

          • Communicate what benefits will come from these changes. Depending on your user base, newsletters, presentations, blog posts, or press releases might be appropriate media. Having a spin “we are creating an awesome new feature! (which requires this widely used old feature to be removed)” is a bit less frustrating than removing a feature without context.

          As for the exact deprecation period to choose, first look whether you have to honor any support contracts with your users. Such contracts may require you to maintain compatibility for some period. If not, consider any downstream impact. Try to change less rapidly than downstream users so that they can go through a deprecation cycle of their own. Downstream users will take some time to adapt to your changes, so you should never have a deprecation period shorter than a month.







          share|improve this answer












          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer










          answered Nov 20 at 18:06









          amon

          83k21158244




          83k21158244







          • 3




            Downvoted because of this: Ideally, your API uses semver so that any breaking change causes the major version number to be incremented. In practice, it is desirable to do this almost never. What is the point of using semver to indicate breaking changes if you're following that by saying you should never introduce a new major version?
            – mrsmn
            Nov 21 at 10:24






          • 6




            Is it really a good idea to rename the package if there is a major change? That's what version numbers are for. I hate when they also rename them, it really messes up Maven dependency management.
            – AJPerez
            Nov 21 at 10:36










          • @AJPerez I understand that's not ideal, but it can prevent conflicts in large dependency graphs with transitive dependencies: I depend on libfoo which depends on libconflict v1.2.3, and I also depend on libbar which depends on libconflict v2.3.4. Then, I cannot select any libconflict version that satisfies all dependencies – unless libconflict and libconflict2 are distinct packages. Specifically for Java, such renaming is annoying b/c I have to change all imports. Fortunately, Java 9 (modules) supports using conflicting versions.
            – amon
            Nov 21 at 11:53






          • 1




            @mrsmn Breaking changes are annoying however you package or name them. Semver only addresses a small part of this problem: being able to tell whether an upgrade will break anything. But once you have a breaking change, you still have to expend effort to accommodate this change. Therefore, it's better if APIs try very hard to be as stable as possible. Ideally they are designed in a way so that they can be extended without breaking backwards compatibility.
            – amon
            Nov 21 at 11:58










          • @AJPerez yes. Yes it is good. People screw up the versioning all the time. Bug fixes (presumed x.x.x++) often are breaking (presumed x++.x.x). As amon points out you (and I do mean you as the user of the dependency) have a problem that you have to fix. I know my code works with foo 3.2.1, it may work with foo 3.3.0. I know my code works with foo, it may work with foo-2. I use semver because popularity and it doesn't hurt per se, but it really isn't clear to me that it buys you all that much.
            – Jared Smith
            Nov 21 at 12:48












          • 3




            Downvoted because of this: Ideally, your API uses semver so that any breaking change causes the major version number to be incremented. In practice, it is desirable to do this almost never. What is the point of using semver to indicate breaking changes if you're following that by saying you should never introduce a new major version?
            – mrsmn
            Nov 21 at 10:24






          • 6




            Is it really a good idea to rename the package if there is a major change? That's what version numbers are for. I hate when they also rename them, it really messes up Maven dependency management.
            – AJPerez
            Nov 21 at 10:36










          • @AJPerez I understand that's not ideal, but it can prevent conflicts in large dependency graphs with transitive dependencies: I depend on libfoo which depends on libconflict v1.2.3, and I also depend on libbar which depends on libconflict v2.3.4. Then, I cannot select any libconflict version that satisfies all dependencies – unless libconflict and libconflict2 are distinct packages. Specifically for Java, such renaming is annoying b/c I have to change all imports. Fortunately, Java 9 (modules) supports using conflicting versions.
            – amon
            Nov 21 at 11:53






          • 1




            @mrsmn Breaking changes are annoying however you package or name them. Semver only addresses a small part of this problem: being able to tell whether an upgrade will break anything. But once you have a breaking change, you still have to expend effort to accommodate this change. Therefore, it's better if APIs try very hard to be as stable as possible. Ideally they are designed in a way so that they can be extended without breaking backwards compatibility.
            – amon
            Nov 21 at 11:58










          • @AJPerez yes. Yes it is good. People screw up the versioning all the time. Bug fixes (presumed x.x.x++) often are breaking (presumed x++.x.x). As amon points out you (and I do mean you as the user of the dependency) have a problem that you have to fix. I know my code works with foo 3.2.1, it may work with foo 3.3.0. I know my code works with foo, it may work with foo-2. I use semver because popularity and it doesn't hurt per se, but it really isn't clear to me that it buys you all that much.
            – Jared Smith
            Nov 21 at 12:48







          3




          3




          Downvoted because of this: Ideally, your API uses semver so that any breaking change causes the major version number to be incremented. In practice, it is desirable to do this almost never. What is the point of using semver to indicate breaking changes if you're following that by saying you should never introduce a new major version?
          – mrsmn
          Nov 21 at 10:24




          Downvoted because of this: Ideally, your API uses semver so that any breaking change causes the major version number to be incremented. In practice, it is desirable to do this almost never. What is the point of using semver to indicate breaking changes if you're following that by saying you should never introduce a new major version?
          – mrsmn
          Nov 21 at 10:24




          6




          6




          Is it really a good idea to rename the package if there is a major change? That's what version numbers are for. I hate when they also rename them, it really messes up Maven dependency management.
          – AJPerez
          Nov 21 at 10:36




          Is it really a good idea to rename the package if there is a major change? That's what version numbers are for. I hate when they also rename them, it really messes up Maven dependency management.
          – AJPerez
          Nov 21 at 10:36












          @AJPerez I understand that's not ideal, but it can prevent conflicts in large dependency graphs with transitive dependencies: I depend on libfoo which depends on libconflict v1.2.3, and I also depend on libbar which depends on libconflict v2.3.4. Then, I cannot select any libconflict version that satisfies all dependencies – unless libconflict and libconflict2 are distinct packages. Specifically for Java, such renaming is annoying b/c I have to change all imports. Fortunately, Java 9 (modules) supports using conflicting versions.
          – amon
          Nov 21 at 11:53




          @AJPerez I understand that's not ideal, but it can prevent conflicts in large dependency graphs with transitive dependencies: I depend on libfoo which depends on libconflict v1.2.3, and I also depend on libbar which depends on libconflict v2.3.4. Then, I cannot select any libconflict version that satisfies all dependencies – unless libconflict and libconflict2 are distinct packages. Specifically for Java, such renaming is annoying b/c I have to change all imports. Fortunately, Java 9 (modules) supports using conflicting versions.
          – amon
          Nov 21 at 11:53




          1




          1




          @mrsmn Breaking changes are annoying however you package or name them. Semver only addresses a small part of this problem: being able to tell whether an upgrade will break anything. But once you have a breaking change, you still have to expend effort to accommodate this change. Therefore, it's better if APIs try very hard to be as stable as possible. Ideally they are designed in a way so that they can be extended without breaking backwards compatibility.
          – amon
          Nov 21 at 11:58




          @mrsmn Breaking changes are annoying however you package or name them. Semver only addresses a small part of this problem: being able to tell whether an upgrade will break anything. But once you have a breaking change, you still have to expend effort to accommodate this change. Therefore, it's better if APIs try very hard to be as stable as possible. Ideally they are designed in a way so that they can be extended without breaking backwards compatibility.
          – amon
          Nov 21 at 11:58












          @AJPerez yes. Yes it is good. People screw up the versioning all the time. Bug fixes (presumed x.x.x++) often are breaking (presumed x++.x.x). As amon points out you (and I do mean you as the user of the dependency) have a problem that you have to fix. I know my code works with foo 3.2.1, it may work with foo 3.3.0. I know my code works with foo, it may work with foo-2. I use semver because popularity and it doesn't hurt per se, but it really isn't clear to me that it buys you all that much.
          – Jared Smith
          Nov 21 at 12:48




          @AJPerez yes. Yes it is good. People screw up the versioning all the time. Bug fixes (presumed x.x.x++) often are breaking (presumed x++.x.x). As amon points out you (and I do mean you as the user of the dependency) have a problem that you have to fix. I know my code works with foo 3.2.1, it may work with foo 3.3.0. I know my code works with foo, it may work with foo-2. I use semver because popularity and it doesn't hurt per se, but it really isn't clear to me that it buys you all that much.
          – Jared Smith
          Nov 21 at 12:48










          up vote
          14
          down vote













          Ideally, you would want to wait until no one is using the deprecated method anymore. Considering you're using a public API, that's easy to track, but you might end up waiting a very long time.



          in 2015, Google had a similar issue with the stlport API on their Android OS. They had deprecated it and wanted to remove it, but tons of apps were still using it. They found a clever solution:



          enter image description here



          Essentially, they added an 8 second sleep() during the bootup of any app which still used the API with an appropriate log message for the developers. A month later, they doubled it to 16 seconds. then another month later, they could safely remove the API interface because no one was left using it.



          This can be a very effective way of doing this. The only real issue is if your API is very old and has actively used consumers that are no longer actively supported. Unfortunately, you probably won't be able to fix such consumers yourself, but at that point you can't really do much more than delete the method and break the consumer.






          share|improve this answer
















          • 4




            Cute. Very cute.
            – David Hammen
            Nov 21 at 15:19














          up vote
          14
          down vote













          Ideally, you would want to wait until no one is using the deprecated method anymore. Considering you're using a public API, that's easy to track, but you might end up waiting a very long time.



          in 2015, Google had a similar issue with the stlport API on their Android OS. They had deprecated it and wanted to remove it, but tons of apps were still using it. They found a clever solution:



          enter image description here



          Essentially, they added an 8 second sleep() during the bootup of any app which still used the API with an appropriate log message for the developers. A month later, they doubled it to 16 seconds. then another month later, they could safely remove the API interface because no one was left using it.



          This can be a very effective way of doing this. The only real issue is if your API is very old and has actively used consumers that are no longer actively supported. Unfortunately, you probably won't be able to fix such consumers yourself, but at that point you can't really do much more than delete the method and break the consumer.






          share|improve this answer
















          • 4




            Cute. Very cute.
            – David Hammen
            Nov 21 at 15:19












          up vote
          14
          down vote










          up vote
          14
          down vote









          Ideally, you would want to wait until no one is using the deprecated method anymore. Considering you're using a public API, that's easy to track, but you might end up waiting a very long time.



          in 2015, Google had a similar issue with the stlport API on their Android OS. They had deprecated it and wanted to remove it, but tons of apps were still using it. They found a clever solution:



          enter image description here



          Essentially, they added an 8 second sleep() during the bootup of any app which still used the API with an appropriate log message for the developers. A month later, they doubled it to 16 seconds. then another month later, they could safely remove the API interface because no one was left using it.



          This can be a very effective way of doing this. The only real issue is if your API is very old and has actively used consumers that are no longer actively supported. Unfortunately, you probably won't be able to fix such consumers yourself, but at that point you can't really do much more than delete the method and break the consumer.






          share|improve this answer












          Ideally, you would want to wait until no one is using the deprecated method anymore. Considering you're using a public API, that's easy to track, but you might end up waiting a very long time.



          in 2015, Google had a similar issue with the stlport API on their Android OS. They had deprecated it and wanted to remove it, but tons of apps were still using it. They found a clever solution:



          enter image description here



          Essentially, they added an 8 second sleep() during the bootup of any app which still used the API with an appropriate log message for the developers. A month later, they doubled it to 16 seconds. then another month later, they could safely remove the API interface because no one was left using it.



          This can be a very effective way of doing this. The only real issue is if your API is very old and has actively used consumers that are no longer actively supported. Unfortunately, you probably won't be able to fix such consumers yourself, but at that point you can't really do much more than delete the method and break the consumer.







          share|improve this answer












          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer










          answered Nov 21 at 12:00









          Nzall

          994615




          994615







          • 4




            Cute. Very cute.
            – David Hammen
            Nov 21 at 15:19












          • 4




            Cute. Very cute.
            – David Hammen
            Nov 21 at 15:19







          4




          4




          Cute. Very cute.
          – David Hammen
          Nov 21 at 15:19




          Cute. Very cute.
          – David Hammen
          Nov 21 at 15:19










          up vote
          8
          down vote













          The minimum time for providing deprecated methods depends on the development cycles of programs using your API. As a ballpark figure, 1 year should be enough.



          As for the maximum time before you have to remove deprecated methods, I'd argue that there is no such thing. No matter how long you wait, removing a deprecated method will always break something. Some programs using your deprecated API are not actively maintained, and breaking compatibility will mean the end of life for such programs.



          I suggest you remove deprecated methods when you gain something from the removal:



          • a bug is detected that affects deprecated methods specifically

          • you're about to refactor the code and maintaining deprecated methods would require significant effort

          • you're optimizing the internal structure of your library, and deprecated methods don't fit in anymore.

          Removing deprecated methods just because they were deprecated for X months/years or because you're releasing a new version amounts to arbitrarily harming compatibility with no good reason.






          share|improve this answer


























            up vote
            8
            down vote













            The minimum time for providing deprecated methods depends on the development cycles of programs using your API. As a ballpark figure, 1 year should be enough.



            As for the maximum time before you have to remove deprecated methods, I'd argue that there is no such thing. No matter how long you wait, removing a deprecated method will always break something. Some programs using your deprecated API are not actively maintained, and breaking compatibility will mean the end of life for such programs.



            I suggest you remove deprecated methods when you gain something from the removal:



            • a bug is detected that affects deprecated methods specifically

            • you're about to refactor the code and maintaining deprecated methods would require significant effort

            • you're optimizing the internal structure of your library, and deprecated methods don't fit in anymore.

            Removing deprecated methods just because they were deprecated for X months/years or because you're releasing a new version amounts to arbitrarily harming compatibility with no good reason.






            share|improve this answer
























              up vote
              8
              down vote










              up vote
              8
              down vote









              The minimum time for providing deprecated methods depends on the development cycles of programs using your API. As a ballpark figure, 1 year should be enough.



              As for the maximum time before you have to remove deprecated methods, I'd argue that there is no such thing. No matter how long you wait, removing a deprecated method will always break something. Some programs using your deprecated API are not actively maintained, and breaking compatibility will mean the end of life for such programs.



              I suggest you remove deprecated methods when you gain something from the removal:



              • a bug is detected that affects deprecated methods specifically

              • you're about to refactor the code and maintaining deprecated methods would require significant effort

              • you're optimizing the internal structure of your library, and deprecated methods don't fit in anymore.

              Removing deprecated methods just because they were deprecated for X months/years or because you're releasing a new version amounts to arbitrarily harming compatibility with no good reason.






              share|improve this answer














              The minimum time for providing deprecated methods depends on the development cycles of programs using your API. As a ballpark figure, 1 year should be enough.



              As for the maximum time before you have to remove deprecated methods, I'd argue that there is no such thing. No matter how long you wait, removing a deprecated method will always break something. Some programs using your deprecated API are not actively maintained, and breaking compatibility will mean the end of life for such programs.



              I suggest you remove deprecated methods when you gain something from the removal:



              • a bug is detected that affects deprecated methods specifically

              • you're about to refactor the code and maintaining deprecated methods would require significant effort

              • you're optimizing the internal structure of your library, and deprecated methods don't fit in anymore.

              Removing deprecated methods just because they were deprecated for X months/years or because you're releasing a new version amounts to arbitrarily harming compatibility with no good reason.







              share|improve this answer














              share|improve this answer



              share|improve this answer








              edited Nov 21 at 9:56

























              answered Nov 21 at 9:50









              Dmitry Grigoryev

              444211




              444211




















                  up vote
                  7
                  down vote













                  First you should consider whether you want deprecated or obsolete.



                  Deprecated should be used for methods that are in some way harmful: security, performance, incorrect results. You want to get rid of them relatively quickly, no more than 2 major version and gone by the 3rd. For significant enough problems, deprecated may be deleted in the next minor version.



                  Obsolete is for things that are less useful for some reason, for instance returns less information or doesn’t work as well, doesn’t include as many options and so forth. These can hang around indefinitely, but should at a minimum be present in the next major version.






                  share|improve this answer




















                  • I'd say a method giving incorrect results or harming security should be either disabled immediately, or fixed. A method with bad performance can hang around indefinitely, so long as its performance is acceptable for some users.
                    – Dmitry Grigoryev
                    Nov 22 at 13:25










                  • @DmitryGrigoryev: a single minor version is pretty close to immediately.
                    – jmoreno
                    Nov 22 at 17:14














                  up vote
                  7
                  down vote













                  First you should consider whether you want deprecated or obsolete.



                  Deprecated should be used for methods that are in some way harmful: security, performance, incorrect results. You want to get rid of them relatively quickly, no more than 2 major version and gone by the 3rd. For significant enough problems, deprecated may be deleted in the next minor version.



                  Obsolete is for things that are less useful for some reason, for instance returns less information or doesn’t work as well, doesn’t include as many options and so forth. These can hang around indefinitely, but should at a minimum be present in the next major version.






                  share|improve this answer




















                  • I'd say a method giving incorrect results or harming security should be either disabled immediately, or fixed. A method with bad performance can hang around indefinitely, so long as its performance is acceptable for some users.
                    – Dmitry Grigoryev
                    Nov 22 at 13:25










                  • @DmitryGrigoryev: a single minor version is pretty close to immediately.
                    – jmoreno
                    Nov 22 at 17:14












                  up vote
                  7
                  down vote










                  up vote
                  7
                  down vote









                  First you should consider whether you want deprecated or obsolete.



                  Deprecated should be used for methods that are in some way harmful: security, performance, incorrect results. You want to get rid of them relatively quickly, no more than 2 major version and gone by the 3rd. For significant enough problems, deprecated may be deleted in the next minor version.



                  Obsolete is for things that are less useful for some reason, for instance returns less information or doesn’t work as well, doesn’t include as many options and so forth. These can hang around indefinitely, but should at a minimum be present in the next major version.






                  share|improve this answer












                  First you should consider whether you want deprecated or obsolete.



                  Deprecated should be used for methods that are in some way harmful: security, performance, incorrect results. You want to get rid of them relatively quickly, no more than 2 major version and gone by the 3rd. For significant enough problems, deprecated may be deleted in the next minor version.



                  Obsolete is for things that are less useful for some reason, for instance returns less information or doesn’t work as well, doesn’t include as many options and so forth. These can hang around indefinitely, but should at a minimum be present in the next major version.







                  share|improve this answer












                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer










                  answered Nov 21 at 1:52









                  jmoreno

                  8,75212142




                  8,75212142











                  • I'd say a method giving incorrect results or harming security should be either disabled immediately, or fixed. A method with bad performance can hang around indefinitely, so long as its performance is acceptable for some users.
                    – Dmitry Grigoryev
                    Nov 22 at 13:25










                  • @DmitryGrigoryev: a single minor version is pretty close to immediately.
                    – jmoreno
                    Nov 22 at 17:14
















                  • I'd say a method giving incorrect results or harming security should be either disabled immediately, or fixed. A method with bad performance can hang around indefinitely, so long as its performance is acceptable for some users.
                    – Dmitry Grigoryev
                    Nov 22 at 13:25










                  • @DmitryGrigoryev: a single minor version is pretty close to immediately.
                    – jmoreno
                    Nov 22 at 17:14















                  I'd say a method giving incorrect results or harming security should be either disabled immediately, or fixed. A method with bad performance can hang around indefinitely, so long as its performance is acceptable for some users.
                  – Dmitry Grigoryev
                  Nov 22 at 13:25




                  I'd say a method giving incorrect results or harming security should be either disabled immediately, or fixed. A method with bad performance can hang around indefinitely, so long as its performance is acceptable for some users.
                  – Dmitry Grigoryev
                  Nov 22 at 13:25












                  @DmitryGrigoryev: a single minor version is pretty close to immediately.
                  – jmoreno
                  Nov 22 at 17:14




                  @DmitryGrigoryev: a single minor version is pretty close to immediately.
                  – jmoreno
                  Nov 22 at 17:14










                  up vote
                  4
                  down vote













                  The answer depends on what sort of service you are giving to your customers.



                  On one end of the extreme, there are mistakes in Windows.h from the Win 3.1 era that propagated for two decades because Microsoft believed very strongly in backwards compatibility.



                  On the other end of the spectrum, many web-apps remove features without even providing a deprecation warning.



                  How much your clients are paying for your software often matters, as does their line of work. Research scientists are typically more willing to accept deprecation as part of the march of progress than, say, bankers or the FAA.



                  I worked for a company developing software for internal use. I supported many groups over the years. One group had a "never remove any feature" mentality. They needed the ability to go back to files 5-10 years ago and do analysis on them on timescales too fast to get developers to put features back in. One group's attitude was "make sure all the deprecations are in the patch notes, so we can find them later." In the middle, we had one group whose rule was "Features must be deprecated for at least 1 version with a printed warning if they are used before removing them." That group had a test suite that covered the features they needed. Whenever we released a new version, they quick ran their test suite against it to see if any of the deprecations gave them trouble.






                  share|improve this answer
























                    up vote
                    4
                    down vote













                    The answer depends on what sort of service you are giving to your customers.



                    On one end of the extreme, there are mistakes in Windows.h from the Win 3.1 era that propagated for two decades because Microsoft believed very strongly in backwards compatibility.



                    On the other end of the spectrum, many web-apps remove features without even providing a deprecation warning.



                    How much your clients are paying for your software often matters, as does their line of work. Research scientists are typically more willing to accept deprecation as part of the march of progress than, say, bankers or the FAA.



                    I worked for a company developing software for internal use. I supported many groups over the years. One group had a "never remove any feature" mentality. They needed the ability to go back to files 5-10 years ago and do analysis on them on timescales too fast to get developers to put features back in. One group's attitude was "make sure all the deprecations are in the patch notes, so we can find them later." In the middle, we had one group whose rule was "Features must be deprecated for at least 1 version with a printed warning if they are used before removing them." That group had a test suite that covered the features they needed. Whenever we released a new version, they quick ran their test suite against it to see if any of the deprecations gave them trouble.






                    share|improve this answer






















                      up vote
                      4
                      down vote










                      up vote
                      4
                      down vote









                      The answer depends on what sort of service you are giving to your customers.



                      On one end of the extreme, there are mistakes in Windows.h from the Win 3.1 era that propagated for two decades because Microsoft believed very strongly in backwards compatibility.



                      On the other end of the spectrum, many web-apps remove features without even providing a deprecation warning.



                      How much your clients are paying for your software often matters, as does their line of work. Research scientists are typically more willing to accept deprecation as part of the march of progress than, say, bankers or the FAA.



                      I worked for a company developing software for internal use. I supported many groups over the years. One group had a "never remove any feature" mentality. They needed the ability to go back to files 5-10 years ago and do analysis on them on timescales too fast to get developers to put features back in. One group's attitude was "make sure all the deprecations are in the patch notes, so we can find them later." In the middle, we had one group whose rule was "Features must be deprecated for at least 1 version with a printed warning if they are used before removing them." That group had a test suite that covered the features they needed. Whenever we released a new version, they quick ran their test suite against it to see if any of the deprecations gave them trouble.






                      share|improve this answer












                      The answer depends on what sort of service you are giving to your customers.



                      On one end of the extreme, there are mistakes in Windows.h from the Win 3.1 era that propagated for two decades because Microsoft believed very strongly in backwards compatibility.



                      On the other end of the spectrum, many web-apps remove features without even providing a deprecation warning.



                      How much your clients are paying for your software often matters, as does their line of work. Research scientists are typically more willing to accept deprecation as part of the march of progress than, say, bankers or the FAA.



                      I worked for a company developing software for internal use. I supported many groups over the years. One group had a "never remove any feature" mentality. They needed the ability to go back to files 5-10 years ago and do analysis on them on timescales too fast to get developers to put features back in. One group's attitude was "make sure all the deprecations are in the patch notes, so we can find them later." In the middle, we had one group whose rule was "Features must be deprecated for at least 1 version with a printed warning if they are used before removing them." That group had a test suite that covered the features they needed. Whenever we released a new version, they quick ran their test suite against it to see if any of the deprecations gave them trouble.







                      share|improve this answer












                      share|improve this answer



                      share|improve this answer










                      answered Nov 21 at 5:42









                      Cort Ammon

                      9,54331730




                      9,54331730




















                          up vote
                          4
                          down vote














                          I am maintaining a public API and have to deprecate a method.




                          Why do you need to do this? Is it because there’s a new shiny way to do things, so the old method is now discouraged, but still works fine? Or does the old method actually need to go because things have fundamentally changed?



                          • If the old method isn’t causing any actual problems, and can stick
                            around, then it may as well. If ain’t broke, don’t fix it. Do you
                            really need to remove it? Maybe mark it as obsolete, and include a
                            note in the documentation that another method might be more
                            efficient, or whatever, but it’s probably fine to leave it in place.


                          • If the old method really does need to go, because it’s causing you
                            maintenance headaches, or because it simply no longer makes any sense
                            due to other changes, then monitor its usage and communicate the
                            deprecation clearly to clients. Give them a clear date after which
                            the method will be removed. (Ideally, don’t actually remove it
                            immediately on this date: wait until no one is still using it before
                            actually removing it. It may need to go sooner, if it’s really
                            causing problems, but at least wait for the usage to drop a little.)


                          • If the old method is causing security problems, you may need to move
                            faster than that, possibly even removing it without warning, but you
                            should document this change somewhere very visible, and also return
                            sensible messages to clients which attempt to use the old method.


                          (The second two bullet points are well covered in other answers, but I think the first one is new.)






                          share|improve this answer
























                            up vote
                            4
                            down vote














                            I am maintaining a public API and have to deprecate a method.




                            Why do you need to do this? Is it because there’s a new shiny way to do things, so the old method is now discouraged, but still works fine? Or does the old method actually need to go because things have fundamentally changed?



                            • If the old method isn’t causing any actual problems, and can stick
                              around, then it may as well. If ain’t broke, don’t fix it. Do you
                              really need to remove it? Maybe mark it as obsolete, and include a
                              note in the documentation that another method might be more
                              efficient, or whatever, but it’s probably fine to leave it in place.


                            • If the old method really does need to go, because it’s causing you
                              maintenance headaches, or because it simply no longer makes any sense
                              due to other changes, then monitor its usage and communicate the
                              deprecation clearly to clients. Give them a clear date after which
                              the method will be removed. (Ideally, don’t actually remove it
                              immediately on this date: wait until no one is still using it before
                              actually removing it. It may need to go sooner, if it’s really
                              causing problems, but at least wait for the usage to drop a little.)


                            • If the old method is causing security problems, you may need to move
                              faster than that, possibly even removing it without warning, but you
                              should document this change somewhere very visible, and also return
                              sensible messages to clients which attempt to use the old method.


                            (The second two bullet points are well covered in other answers, but I think the first one is new.)






                            share|improve this answer






















                              up vote
                              4
                              down vote










                              up vote
                              4
                              down vote










                              I am maintaining a public API and have to deprecate a method.




                              Why do you need to do this? Is it because there’s a new shiny way to do things, so the old method is now discouraged, but still works fine? Or does the old method actually need to go because things have fundamentally changed?



                              • If the old method isn’t causing any actual problems, and can stick
                                around, then it may as well. If ain’t broke, don’t fix it. Do you
                                really need to remove it? Maybe mark it as obsolete, and include a
                                note in the documentation that another method might be more
                                efficient, or whatever, but it’s probably fine to leave it in place.


                              • If the old method really does need to go, because it’s causing you
                                maintenance headaches, or because it simply no longer makes any sense
                                due to other changes, then monitor its usage and communicate the
                                deprecation clearly to clients. Give them a clear date after which
                                the method will be removed. (Ideally, don’t actually remove it
                                immediately on this date: wait until no one is still using it before
                                actually removing it. It may need to go sooner, if it’s really
                                causing problems, but at least wait for the usage to drop a little.)


                              • If the old method is causing security problems, you may need to move
                                faster than that, possibly even removing it without warning, but you
                                should document this change somewhere very visible, and also return
                                sensible messages to clients which attempt to use the old method.


                              (The second two bullet points are well covered in other answers, but I think the first one is new.)






                              share|improve this answer













                              I am maintaining a public API and have to deprecate a method.




                              Why do you need to do this? Is it because there’s a new shiny way to do things, so the old method is now discouraged, but still works fine? Or does the old method actually need to go because things have fundamentally changed?



                              • If the old method isn’t causing any actual problems, and can stick
                                around, then it may as well. If ain’t broke, don’t fix it. Do you
                                really need to remove it? Maybe mark it as obsolete, and include a
                                note in the documentation that another method might be more
                                efficient, or whatever, but it’s probably fine to leave it in place.


                              • If the old method really does need to go, because it’s causing you
                                maintenance headaches, or because it simply no longer makes any sense
                                due to other changes, then monitor its usage and communicate the
                                deprecation clearly to clients. Give them a clear date after which
                                the method will be removed. (Ideally, don’t actually remove it
                                immediately on this date: wait until no one is still using it before
                                actually removing it. It may need to go sooner, if it’s really
                                causing problems, but at least wait for the usage to drop a little.)


                              • If the old method is causing security problems, you may need to move
                                faster than that, possibly even removing it without warning, but you
                                should document this change somewhere very visible, and also return
                                sensible messages to clients which attempt to use the old method.


                              (The second two bullet points are well covered in other answers, but I think the first one is new.)







                              share|improve this answer












                              share|improve this answer



                              share|improve this answer










                              answered Nov 21 at 15:12









                              TRiG

                              9411020




                              9411020




















                                  up vote
                                  1
                                  down vote













                                  For a public project, only remove it if and only if you need to.



                                  When you do unnecessary API removal, you're costing money for companies and contractors in such a way that you can't even calculate due to costly churn.



                                  Want companies and independent programmers to stop using your project? Break their stuff enough times when you're not essential and you'll be in that boat in no time.



                                  deprecation != eventual_removal. If an API is dangerous, you remove it. If it's just old, leave it and document its replacement.






                                  share|improve this answer
























                                    up vote
                                    1
                                    down vote













                                    For a public project, only remove it if and only if you need to.



                                    When you do unnecessary API removal, you're costing money for companies and contractors in such a way that you can't even calculate due to costly churn.



                                    Want companies and independent programmers to stop using your project? Break their stuff enough times when you're not essential and you'll be in that boat in no time.



                                    deprecation != eventual_removal. If an API is dangerous, you remove it. If it's just old, leave it and document its replacement.






                                    share|improve this answer






















                                      up vote
                                      1
                                      down vote










                                      up vote
                                      1
                                      down vote









                                      For a public project, only remove it if and only if you need to.



                                      When you do unnecessary API removal, you're costing money for companies and contractors in such a way that you can't even calculate due to costly churn.



                                      Want companies and independent programmers to stop using your project? Break their stuff enough times when you're not essential and you'll be in that boat in no time.



                                      deprecation != eventual_removal. If an API is dangerous, you remove it. If it's just old, leave it and document its replacement.






                                      share|improve this answer












                                      For a public project, only remove it if and only if you need to.



                                      When you do unnecessary API removal, you're costing money for companies and contractors in such a way that you can't even calculate due to costly churn.



                                      Want companies and independent programmers to stop using your project? Break their stuff enough times when you're not essential and you'll be in that boat in no time.



                                      deprecation != eventual_removal. If an API is dangerous, you remove it. If it's just old, leave it and document its replacement.







                                      share|improve this answer












                                      share|improve this answer



                                      share|improve this answer










                                      answered Nov 21 at 20:25









                                      kayleeFrye_onDeck

                                      16011




                                      16011












                                          Popular posts from this blog

                                          How to check contact read email or not when send email to Individual?

                                          Displaying single band from multi-band raster using QGIS

                                          How many registers does an x86_64 CPU actually have?