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 Inventing soft deprecation for features that have been superseded but have yet to be actually replaced is just a lazy way of putting off fully deprecating something.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.
*--* *Tyler Romeo* Stevens Institute of Technology, Class of 2015 Major in Computer Science www.whizkidztech.com | tylerro...@gmail.com On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 8:29 AM, Krinkle <krinklem...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 11:26 AM, Jeroen De Dauw <jeroended...@gmail.com > >wrote: > > > Hey, > > > > This is something I've come across several times before when deprecating > > functions: people want different behaviour with regard to the warnings > they > > get. Typically what people want can be split into two groups: > > > > > Didn't we solve this already by being able to pass a version to > wfDeprecation() and allowing users to set $wgDeprecationReleaseLimit to > hide/show from whatever cut-off point they desire? > > -- Krinkle > _______________________________________________ > Wikitech-l mailing list > Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l > _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
