Mhm. I like the idea of function supersession. Basically, I just don't think we should call a function deprecated unless it actually is indeed deprecated, i.e., no longer used anywhere in the core. Theoretically, a function that is deprecated in the core should not show any warnings whatsoever when testing without extensions.
If we can somehow denote functions that are *planned to be deprecated*, that would be a better solution, and then deprecation would actually occur when all instances of the feature are removed from the core. *--* *Tyler Romeo* Stevens Institute of Technology, Class of 2015 Major in Computer Science www.whizkidztech.com | [email protected] On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 9:01 AM, Derric Atzrott <[email protected] > wrote: > >I don't think this is a very good idea at all. The real problem has to do > with > >the definition of a deprecated feature. If a feature has been deprecated, > then > >it should no longer be used (at least not in the core). > > > >Inventing soft deprecation for features that have been superseded but have > yet > >to be actually replaced is just a lazy way of putting off fully > deprecating > >something. Yes, there should probably be some sort of configuration option > to > >turn on/off deprecation warnings entirely, and I think the whole > >$wgDeprecationReleaseLimit is a good approach to this, but there shouldn't > be > >levels of deprecation. A feature should just be deprecated or not. > > As I stated earlier, I'm pro-multiple levels of deprecation, but if we > don't > go that route then I think that we should treat all deprecation the same. > This: > > "Congratulations, you've just made developer warnings and your IDE's > deprecation warnings useless due to the amount of noise. These functions > are > used WIDELY across the core, so deprecation should be as soft as possible. > I > suggest to revert these commits (why merge them so hastily, anyway?!) and > revisit this issue when MW core and popular extensions will be (mostly) > clean." > > Should not happen then if a function is deprecated. If we don't want to > display the warnings, then we shouldn't deprecate the function. > > That or we need to find an alternative solution to the problem. If it > makes > it any better we could call Soft Deprecation "Function Supersession" or > something similar to show that a function has been superseded even if not > formally deprecated yet. > > Thank you, > Derric Atzrott > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikitech-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l > _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
