Re: notice: intent to diganose use of 'Df'

[G. Branden Robinson]

Hi John,

At 2023-06-30T00:26:32+1000, John Gardner wrote:
> I did review it, but those aren't the changes that worry me. Rather,
> it's the ones they appear to allude to: "support for `\D'f…' *may* (or
> may not) disappear in the next release".

Ah, yes.  When I consider the possibility of 1.23.1, 1.23.2 releases in
parallel with 1.24.0 development, that phrasing statement is not only
ambiguous but can be perceived as ominous.

As a rule, I don't think it's a good idea to drop a feature in a point
release.  I'd make an exception for a security footgun[1], I think--but
can't think of much else.

> > Do you also object to the emission of these diagnostic messages?
> 
> Not at all, but the undercurrent of urgency is a tad misleading.

Not least because of the average duration between groff releases...

> Personally, I'd replace *"may disappear in the next release"* with
> *"may disappear in a future release"* so it sounds less like an
> imminent or planned removal.

Fair point.  I'll change that.

> Apart from that, I wholeheartedly endorse making deprecation warnings
> more obvious and noticeable by users.

Thanks for nudging my radicalism back toward the center.  ;-)

Regards,
Branden

[1] "Security" in the sense of the "CIA triad", so including data
    corruption bugs.

    https://www.fortinet.com/resources/cyberglossary/cia-triad

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature