doc: clarify removal of experimental API does not require a deprecation #55746
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
MoLow
approved these changes
Nov 6, 2024
legendecas
approved these changes
Nov 7, 2024
gireeshpunathil
approved these changes
Nov 7, 2024
aduh95
added
author ready
UlisesGascon
approved these changes
Nov 7, 2024
mertcanaltin
approved these changes
Nov 7, 2024
lpinca
approved these changes
Nov 7, 2024
nodejs-github-bot
removed
the
commit-queue
|
Landed in 37c941b |
aduh95
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 16, 2024
PR-URL: #55746 Reviewed-By: Moshe Atlow <moshe@atlow.co.il> Reviewed-By: Chengzhong Wu <legendecas@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Gireesh Punathil <gpunathi@in.ibm.com> Reviewed-By: Ulises Gascón <ulisesgascongonzalez@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <luigipinca@gmail.com>
tpoisseau
pushed a commit
to tpoisseau/node
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 21, 2024
PR-URL: nodejs#55746 Reviewed-By: Moshe Atlow <moshe@atlow.co.il> Reviewed-By: Chengzhong Wu <legendecas@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Gireesh Punathil <gpunathi@in.ibm.com> Reviewed-By: Ulises Gascón <ulisesgascongonzalez@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <luigipinca@gmail.com>
Ceres6
pushed a commit
to Ceres6/node
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 26, 2024
PR-URL: nodejs#55746 Reviewed-By: Moshe Atlow <moshe@atlow.co.il> Reviewed-By: Chengzhong Wu <legendecas@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Gireesh Punathil <gpunathi@in.ibm.com> Reviewed-By: Ulises Gascón <ulisesgascongonzalez@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <luigipinca@gmail.com>
ruyadorno
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 27, 2024
PR-URL: #55746 Reviewed-By: Moshe Atlow <moshe@atlow.co.il> Reviewed-By: Chengzhong Wu <legendecas@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Gireesh Punathil <gpunathi@in.ibm.com> Reviewed-By: Ulises Gascón <ulisesgascongonzalez@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <luigipinca@gmail.com>
ruyadorno
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 27, 2024
PR-URL: #55746 Reviewed-By: Moshe Atlow <moshe@atlow.co.il> Reviewed-By: Chengzhong Wu <legendecas@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Gireesh Punathil <gpunathi@in.ibm.com> Reviewed-By: Ulises Gascón <ulisesgascongonzalez@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <luigipinca@gmail.com>
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
As suggested in #55740 (review).
IMO there's value in keeping the deprecated stability status for APIs that are stable. Users are already discouraged from using experimental APIs in production (because of the lack of stability), so applying a deprecated status on top of experimental only muddies the water, and I don't think it would be a stretch to imagine users starting to expect experimental APIs to follow semver until it's deprecated.
I'm not against emitting warnings when an experimental API is being modified and/or removed, I'm saying we should refrain from using the word deprecated in those cases.