Re: [RFC] Reclassifying engine warnings

On 28 August 2019 17:45:50 BST, Marco Pivetta <ocramius@gmail.com> wrote: >The point is that "some organisations do X" is always used as an excuse >for >turning language design mistakes into BC boundaries. No. Things that break compatibility are compatibility breaks. It doesn't matter if they were mistakes or fashions, if code will break, it will break. We can't change that by arguing about workflows and tools. Our job is to decide if and how to make those breaks. So, firstly, we need to agree that their is value to this particular break. I think there probably is, but people may have different opinions. Secondly, we need to think of a sensible way to introduce it. Is it responsible to put a note in an upgrading page and hope everyone spots it? Is there a way we can flag it more loudly? What is the best time frame to roll it out? Is there a way those who want to get it earlier can do so? Does that sound reasonable? Regards, -- Rowan Collins [IMSoP]