Hi John, At 2023-06-30T00:26:32+1000, John Gardner wrote: > I did review it, but those aren't the changes that worry me. Rather, > it's the ones they appear to allude to: "support for `\D'f…' *may* (or > may not) disappear in the next release".
Ah, yes. When I consider the possibility of 1.23.1, 1.23.2 releases in
parallel with 1.24.0 development, that phrasing statement is not only
ambiguous but can be perceived as ominous.
As a rule, I don't think it's a good idea to drop a feature in a point
release. I'd make an exception for a security footgun[1], I think--but
can't think of much else.
> > Do you also object to the emission of these diagnostic messages?
>
> Not at all, but the undercurrent of urgency is a tad misleading.
Not least because of the average duration between groff releases...
> Personally, I'd replace *"may disappear in the next release"* with
> *"may disappear in a future release"* so it sounds less like an
> imminent or planned removal.
Fair point. I'll change that.
> Apart from that, I wholeheartedly endorse making deprecation warnings
> more obvious and noticeable by users.
Thanks for nudging my radicalism back toward the center. ;-)
Regards,
Branden
[1] "Security" in the sense of the "CIA triad", so including data
corruption bugs.
https://www.fortinet.com/resources/cyberglossary/cia-triad
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
