On 24 April 2015 at 09:22, Martin Nowak via Digitalmars-d <[email protected]> wrote: > On Friday, 24 April 2015 at 02:09:06 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: >> >> On 4/23/2015 6:26 AM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote: >>> >>> I agree it should have been done, not saying it's OK to break the process >>> in >>> some cases. I'm just explaining why it probably happened the way it did. >> >> >> Yes, it should have been done. We screwed up. > > > It's time that we agree on/document an official deprecation approach and > rigorously enforce it, making as few exceptions as possible. As it stands > now, everyone follows their own policy. Any volunteer to put this in a DIP?
One thing I noticed is that for many deprecations / planned deprecations, there is no issue in bugzilla (Override? .sort?) I hope you don't mind me doing the honours. https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14488 https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14489 https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14490 https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14491 https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14492 Regards Iain
