-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 712
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Request For Comment: Deprecation Process #1083
Comments
This seems reasonable to me, but we should probably define a timeline (or # of releases) for each of the steps. My main concern is that we need to make deprecated patterns and their replacements very easy to find. For a documentation tool, we still have pretty poor docs despite the recent work. More things to consider
|
I've started leaving comments in the code when I come across something that wants deprecating, they usually go something like this: // discourage 0.13, warn 0.17, remove 0.19 To mark when a given feature began to be discouraged, when we should start giving warnings (I'm not planning any warnings before 0.17), and when it should be removed. Generally I don't want to start warning on a given feature until at least one minor version has passed, and it shouldn't be removed until at least one minor version after that, though for more common options I've been leaving larger gaps. In particular, the This is in contrast to support for autodiscovery of |
Problem
There have been a couple instances of features which were implemented but are no longer our recommended approach (#1029 and now #1080). So far we have sought to maintain support while encouraging the preferred pattern. However, that still leaves us supporting the old pattern.
I would like to suggest that we have a process for how features are deprecated.
Suggested Solution
I suggest a multi-step approach
Please let me know what you think of this plan. Concerns and alternate suggestions welcome.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: