[5.2] Add legacy message to content modules

[bembelimen]

Summary of Changes

With #43738 we have a "one for all" module for certain content modules. This PR adds an info that users should use the new module instead.

Testing Instructions

• Appy PR

Actual result BEFORE applying this Pull Request

No messages

Expected result AFTER applying this Pull Request

• Content modules have an info text
  

Link to documentations

Please select:

• Documentation link for docs.joomla.org:

• No documentation changes for docs.joomla.org needed

• Pull Request link for manual.joomla.org:

• No documentation changes for manual.joomla.org needed

[fgsw]

I have tested this item ✅ successfully on 0a54475

---

_{This comment was created with the J!Tracker Application at issues.joomla.org/tracker/joomla-cms/44366.}

[ChristineWk]

I have tested this item ✅ successfully on 0a54475

---

_{This comment was created with the J!Tracker Application at issues.joomla.org/tracker/joomla-cms/44366.}

[brianteeman]

I am not in favour of such a public deprecation notice.

1. the reality is that these modules are here to stay unless someone works out a way to migrate existing instances of those modules to the new module.

2. the meaning of the word "deprecated" to be "superseded" is not common outside of the programming world. using it here is meaningless and creates confusion if it is not understood.

3. the development strategy states that something can only be marked as deprecated in a new major or minor release. As 5.2 has been released then this cannot be for branch 5.2

4. surely the code should be marked as deprecated as well. So that the only people who understand what deprecated means can see it.

5. finally this breaks even the programmers usage of the word "deprecated" as it fails to say when it will be "removed" and the language is not clear what you should be using instead.

This is a change for changes sake and benefits no one.

[brianteeman]

Maybe it's an English language issue and instead of writing deprecated it would be better to write legacy

[laoneo]

And it should go into 5.3.

[Quy]

Missing Articles - Archived per the following:

Articles - Archived -> Filter Archived Articles only
Articles - Category -> Select category, play with parameter, use filter, group them, etc.
Articles - Latest -> Change ordering to newest first
Articles - Most Read -> Change ordering to hits
Articles - Newsflash -> Select category, play with parameter, use filter, group them, etc.

[Kostelano]

Missing Articles - Archived per the following:

@Quy
Does the new module have a layout for displaying a list of months, as is implemented in the archive module?

For now, the new module can group and display archive articles, but not a list of months (correct me if I'm wrong and missed this).

[Quy]

Missing Articles - Archived per the following:

@Quy Does the new module have a layout for displaying a list of months, as is implemented in the archive module?

For now, the new module can group and display archive articles, but not a list of months (correct me if I'm wrong and missed this).

Sorry I have not used the Articles module yet to answer your question. Based on PR #43738 description, this is one of the modules being replaced.

[softforge]

Maybe it's an English language issue and instead of writing deprecated it would be better to write legacy

Deprecated and legacy convey two distinctly different meanings.

Deprecated means the "thing" (function, API, feature) is still in the code and available but will be removed in future versions and better alternatives exist, that continued use will at some point cause problems.

Legacy means the "thing" is still in active use, works but may be outdated, needs to be maintained for compatibility, isn't necessarily bad or discouraged, and may be difficult to replace.

So in simple terms
Deprecated = "Stop using this it's going away"
Legacy= "This is old but still valid and supported"

If you want to make usage clear then say (Removed in future releases)

This conveys the need to not start using it. Whereas legacy does not convey the discouragement needed.

[HLeithner]

This pull request has been automatically rebased to 5.3-dev.