Add deprecation notices to functions that will go away in v0.3.0.

[iphydf]

This change is 

[zoff99]

what if you miss any events? why are all these going to be removed?

[iphydf]

How do you miss events?

[zoff99]

a bug (100% bugfree c-toxcore? wow),
or just dont want events but rather "ask" later about some thing

also what positive things are achieved by removing these functions?

[iphydf]

If toxcore fails to emit the callback, then most likely the value is also not stored inside the tox instance, so the getter doesn't give you anything more. The positive thing is that toxcore no longer needs to keep track of this information that is most likely stored in the client anyway. I'd like to make toxcore itself more "core"-ish, smaller interface, and provide additional functionality through extra libraries. Separation of concerns and all that :).

[robinlinden]

---

Reviewed 2 of 2 files at r1.
Review status: all files reviewed at latest revision, all discussions resolved, some commit checks failed.

---

Comments from Reviewable

[iphydf]

Added client maintainers to see if they can accept this change.

[zoff99]

LGTM.
yet i don't agree with the change to remove api call for clients to get some infos. having only the events is not good. more complex clients code.

[iphydf]

I agree, it makes the client code of very simple clients a bit more complex. I don't think it'll do much for already complex clients, because they will have found no use in getting e.g. the byte representation of the status message from scratch each time. They will have stored it in their own data structure in a form they can handle nicely (e.g. as UTF-16 string). I'm vaguely planning to pull out a bit of functionality from toxcore and put it in a client helper library for C clients (probably not very useful for other languages). That could store things like that and also be allowed file I/O, which toxcore isn't allowed.

[sudden6]

---

Reviewed 2 of 2 files at r2.
Review status: all files reviewed at latest revision, all discussions resolved, some commit checks failed.

---

Comments from Reviewable

[nurupo]

API/ABI breaking change in v0.2.x? I thought that our versioning was that of Semantic Versioning but with the leading zero removed. Making such change in a v0.2.x instead of 0.2.0 or 0.3.0 violates that.

[zoff99]

---

Review status: 0 of 2 files reviewed at latest revision, 1 unresolved discussion.

---

Comments from Reviewable

[zoff99]

Reviewed 2 of 2 files at r3.
Review status: all files reviewed at latest revision, 1 unresolved discussion.

---

Comments from Reviewable

[iphydf]

@JFreegman please take a look. I've removed the deprecation notices from all the string valued getters, i.e. things that can be useful to store in the tox state for now.

[JFreegman]

---

Reviewed 2 of 2 files at r4.
Review status: all files reviewed at latest revision, 1 unresolved discussion.

---

Comments from Reviewable