On Wednesday, October 9, 2024, Daniel Gustafsson <dan...@yesql.se> wrote:
> > On 9 Oct 2024, at 19:15, Nathan Bossart <nathandboss...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Another problem is that "deprecated" may or may not imply that the > feature > > will be removed in the future. IMHO we should be clear about that when > we > > intend to remove something down the road (e.g., "this flag is deprecated > > and will be removed in a future major release of PostgreSQL"). > > That's a fair point, but if we don't aim to remove something we have, > IMHO, a > social contract to maintain the feature instead and at that point it's > questionable if it is indeed deprecated. I guess I think we should > separate > between discouraged and deprecated. > I’m for the status-quo. We don’t imply removal when we say deprecated, only that (usually) a better alternative exists. This setup meets our existing standards. I don’t see a need or meaningful benefit trying to add a new term “discouraged” here. But if we do want to improve formality in this area a recap of existing discussions and its own thread would be needed. David J.
