Plans for dropping for OAS2 ? #503
Replies: 3 comments 3 replies
-
burn it out. It's difficult to maintain and it also leads to confusion as a user when trying to filter out the old conventions vs. the new. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Vaguely related... This seems like it'd be a major version change (ie. Now that we have more maintainers on the project, should we let loose a bit and do a major refactor for v3? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
This has been up for 15 days now. I'm not sure if there's any other way to reach people, but so far it seems there's no negative responses. I think there's good points here about the refactoring / major release, but we need to be strategic with the amount of resources we have. A re-write, refactor would likely be too big of a bite, and it would likely end in failure. I'm more in favour of issuing a deprecation warning, and then gradually refactor things away from OAS2. My biggest concern right now would be moving the |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Hi everyone,
Right now supporting OAS2 adds quite a big overhead, and I'm wondering if it really makes sense to continue supporting it. OAS 3.0.0 was released on 26 July 2017, and if we to continue to keep this gem in good shape, it's time to focus our resources into supporting OAS >= 3
Some examples of the overhead in keeping backwards compatibility include recent pull requests, like:
What do you think? Please react with 👎 if still need OAS2 support.
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions