-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 29.6k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
doc: document deprecation of util._extend #4903
Conversation
doc: document deprecation of util._extend See the discussion here nodejs#4593 for more details as well as the 2016-01-20 minutes.
Something went very wrong with git in #4902 , so I created a new PR. |
@@ -548,6 +548,16 @@ Deprecated predecessor of `console.log`. | |||
|
|||
Deprecated predecessor of `console.log`. | |||
|
|||
## util._extend(obj) | |||
|
|||
Stability: 0 - Deprecated: Use Object.assign() instead. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I suggested a change in #4907. If it gets through, we can make the Object.assign()
a link.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Great, now that it landed I'll edit it into it.
@nodejs/ctc ... defensively marking as semver-major since it's a deprecation. If anyone feels that too strong, lemme know |
@@ -548,6 +548,16 @@ Deprecated predecessor of `console.log`. | |||
|
|||
Deprecated predecessor of `console.log`. | |||
|
|||
## util._extend(obj) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think you need to escape (\_
) the underscore for markdown.
Is there any benefit in recommending a polyfill so that modules can use |
Yes, I'm not trying to strengthen the case to deprecate |
Not sure I agree with this, naming it "deprecation" seems weird. I think if we're going to do this, I'd rather have it be labeled "discouragement" or similar. Also, as others have pointed out, |
-1. We shouldn't add something that was never public just to say that it's deprecated |
@vkurchatkin @silverwind I was under the impression I'm following the consensus reached at the TSC 2016-01-20 meeting. |
Link to the discussion. I wouldn't object if CTC want's to push this through, just my opinion. |
Also, I'm +1 on documenting it. I'd be happy if you remove the deprecation badge and add a note that it's discouraged. |
@benjamingr well, I disagree nonetheless) |
@vkurchatkin If we cannot document it, then we cannot deprecate it as per the current deprecation process right? |
LGTM. This is in line with the CTC discussion and decision. |
I'd like to give @vkurchatkin and @silverwind a chance to express their views and pursue changing the decision first :) |
Hey, I'm not sure how to move forward with this. @vkurchatkin @silverwind is there another way you'd write this? I don't mind following up with a different PR if you have an idea that will convey that status you can agree with. |
Looking at it again, I don't think it's really that much of a big deal calling it 'deprecation' as I may have made it out to be, so LGTM. |
Document that util._extend was never intended to be used and should be considered deprecated. PR-URL: #4903 Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Roman Reiss <me@silverwind.io>
Landed in d829028 |
This was never part of the public API, and has officially been depreciated in Node 6 nodejs/node#4903
This was never part of the public API, and has officially been depreciated in Node 6 nodejs/node#4903 Object.assign can't be used yet since it requires ES2015
doc: document deprecation of util._extend
See the discussion here #4593 for more
details as well as the 2016-01-20 minutes.