doc: document deprecation of util._extend #4903
Conversation
doc: document deprecation of util._extend See the discussion here #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. | |||
thefourtheye
Jan 27, 2016
Contributor
I suggested a change in #4907. If it gets through, we can make the Object.assign() a link.
I suggested a change in #4907. If it gets through, we can make the Object.assign() a link.
benjamingr
Jan 28, 2016
Author
Member
Great, now that it landed I'll edit it into it.
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) | |||
brendanashworth
Jan 28, 2016
Contributor
I think you need to escape (\_) the underscore for markdown.
I think you need to escape (\_) the underscore for markdown.
|
|
||
| Stability: 0 - Deprecated: Use Object.assign() instead. | ||
|
|
||
| `_extend` was never intended to be used outside of internal NodeJS modules. The |
thefourtheye
Jan 28, 2016
Contributor
I think we conveyed this at the top of the page. https://nodejs.org/api/util.html#util_util
I think we conveyed this at the top of the page. https://nodejs.org/api/util.html#util_util
|
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.