changelog/deprecate_dualcontext: Reword to neutral tone#12111
changelog/deprecate_dualcontext: Reword to neutral tone#12111ibuclaw merged 1 commit intodlang:masterfrom
Conversation
|
Thanks for your pull request, @CyberShadow! Bugzilla referencesYour PR doesn't reference any Bugzilla issue. If your PR contains non-trivial changes, please reference a Bugzilla issue or create a manual changelog. Testing this PR locallyIf you don't have a local development environment setup, you can use Digger to test this PR: dub run digger -- build "master + dmd#12111" |
| over nine releases, so now it has been deprecated, and due to be fully reverted | ||
| in a future release. | ||
| In order to maintain feature parity among D implementations, this | ||
| improvement has been deprecated, and may be removed from a future DMD |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I understand that the removal is conditional on that the compiler vendors fail to implement the feature in their backends.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This isn't being hostile at all. You are reading between lines here.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The usage of phrases like "dead feature" and "over nine releases" have a negative tone and the rephrasing is much more appropriate to the professional, neutral tone of an official document.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The usage of phrases like "dead feature" and "over nine releases" have a negative tone
The negative note that is the result of your interpretation here. Not everyone have the same interpretation here.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Considering the context being a professional software project changelog, it does clearly read aggravated/frustrated to me. We do not want to convey that sentiment to users.
Geod24
left a comment
Geod24
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This LGTM. I'll let other people weight in. Sorry should have caught this on the previous PR.
RazvanN7
added
Merge:72h no objection -> merge
|
This is splitting hairs here. |
| over nine releases, so now it has been deprecated, and due to be fully reverted | ||
| in a future release. | ||
| In order to maintain feature parity among D implementations, this | ||
| improvement has been deprecated, and may be removed from a future DMD |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This isn't being hostile at all. You are reading between lines here.
| over nine releases, so now it has been deprecated, and due to be fully reverted | ||
| in a future release. | ||
| In order to maintain feature parity among D implementations, this | ||
| improvement has been deprecated, and may be removed from a future DMD |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
"may be removed from a future DMD"
May!? What do you mean by may? It quite clear that @ibuclaw intended to remove this in the feature. Don't give them any false hopes here.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@ibuclaw has proposed alternative fixes. Although there is a small chance that anyone is going to actually implement those, I think it is better to stay positive.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@ibuclaw has proposed alternative fixes.
Although there is a small chance that anyone is going to actually implement those, I think it is better to stay positive.
Just because you proposed something doesn't mean it going to happen. Let not give them false hope here.
|
Just because the wording isn't hostile, doesn't mean that it isn't strong. This is likely down to biases that were developed even before the original change was merged, which weren't helped when my concerns (and @WalterBright shared similar inclinations too) were simply ignored. At no point when I wrote the changelog entry did I step back and say: "How does this change make me feel?", so no attempt was done to avoid phrasing things in a such a manner that made it loud and clear just how I felt. |
|
@ibuclaw I assume you are okay with merging this, then? For the user, it matters what the compiler changes are, not whether we've internally got our shit together or not – no need to air dirty laundry in public. (I wholeheartedly agree that this went less well on procedural as well as technical aspects, but no need to make a statement about internal griefs to users either.) |
7 participants
No description provided.