Philip Oakley <philipoakley@xxxxxxx> writes: >> Those who do *not* opt into that "early warning" configuration dance >> would eventually be warned whenever they type "diff A..B", and the >> timing for that eventuality is not under their control, so quite >> honestly, I do not see much point in "giving users the chance". > > With the opposite hat on, not giving users the choice does seem unfair > to those that are trying to keep up. If we are warning (in the release > notes) of an upcoming deprecation (in the code) then it does seem > helpful that users could buy into the deprecation early, and at their > convenience, to assist in the unlearning of an old habit, which can be > much harder than learning a new habit, hence my comment. > > You are right that those who neither notice nor care will be surprised > later, but we shouldn't let that limit others. I still do not quite get where you are coming from. Are you saying that those who do not opt into the early warning may get 2 cycles (just picked out of thin-air) of deprecation period, and with an optional early warning feature, those who feel that 2 cycles is not long enough to train their fingers would spend 3 cycles and they will be helped than without? That line of thinking sounds somewhat ridiculous---where does it end? If those who opt into would find it sufficient to have 3 cycles to train, there may still be people who feel 3 is not enough and want to have 4. As we make it longer, we'd cover more people and at some point we'd reach the point of diminishing returns. Wouldn't it be even better, and far simper, to just extend the deprecation period to that many cycles to make it long enough for majority of users' needs, without any early warning option? The thing is, once you train your fingers, it does not matter to you if the deprecation warning is still there, as you'd not be typing "diff A..B" at that point. So I am not sure who you are trying to help by the early warning option. Thanks.
