Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2016 09:58:21 +0100 From: John Marino <freebsd.contact@marino.st> To: koobs@FreeBSD.org, Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Martin Wilke <miwi.fbsd@gmail.com>, ports-committers@freebsd.org, "svn-ports-all@FreeBSD.org" <svn-ports-all@freebsd.org>, "svn-ports-head@FreeBSD.org" <svn-ports-head@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: svn commit: r407270 - head/ports-mgmt/portmaster Message-ID: <56A886AD.4070301@marino.st> In-Reply-To: <56A88489.5020507@FreeBSD.org> References: <201601261123.u0QBNcvL091258@repo.freebsd.org> <CAFY%2ByEkOv9-JaJv45WF-GzTxOiFh6k8sZ4rysUS5xTZs=rWNrA@mail.gmail.com> <56A86CAD.7030507@marino.st> <56A8747E.5080703@FreeBSD.org> <20160127081700.GA20812@FreeBSD.org> <56A87FCE.6080305@FreeBSD.org> <20160127084230.GA28230@FreeBSD.org> <56A88489.5020507@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 1/27/2016 9:49 AM, Kubilay Kocak wrote: > On 27/01/2016 7:42 PM, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote: >> On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 07:29:02PM +1100, Kubilay Kocak wrote: >>> On 27/01/2016 7:17 PM, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote: >>>> On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 06:40:46PM +1100, Kubilay Kocak wrote: >>>>> Given what the term 'deprecated' implies, I would use a pre-everything: >>>>> message instead. >>>> >>>> That's a good idea actually. >>> >>> It would be nice to have something framework'ey that is less loaded than >>> DEPRECATED, but more specific and consistent than your standard ECHO_MSG >>> or pkg-message. Like CAUTION/ALERT/WARNING/INFORMATIONAL or similar. >> >> Personally I don't think that DEPRECATED is *that* loaded. IMHO it works >> quite fine for cases like this one, and no, it should not imply expiration >> date. But perhaps there is warrant for CAUTION/ALERT/WARNING/INFORMATION >> or similar indeed. > > Neither do I. However, while *we* might grok it's non-specific nature, > but I'll bet you $100 that the vast majority of software users (not just > of FreeBSD) would go by the dictionary definition, or some equivalent > of it: > > 3. Computers: To mark (a component of a software standard) as obsolete > to warn against its use in the future so that it may be phased out. > > DEPRECATED's non specific nature is kind of what I was getting at, and > why I think there's room for something better. > It seems to me that definition is perfect. It *is* obsolete, people should be warned, and yes, eventually it will likely be phased out (assuming nothing changes) What's wrong with that? Until then, keep using it if you want.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?56A886AD.4070301>