-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 630
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
docs(archive): clarify deprecation notices #6034
Conversation
archive/_common.ts
Outdated
@@ -7,7 +7,7 @@ import type { Reader } from "@std/io/types"; | |||
* Base interface for {@linkcode TarMeta}. | |||
* | |||
* @deprecated Use {@linkcode https://jsr.io/@std/tar | @std/tar} instead. | |||
* `@std/archive` will be removed after 0.225.4. | |||
* `@std/archive` will be removed, with 0.225.4 being the last published version. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think there's no guarantee that 0.225.4 will be the last version. (For example, it might be required by some CLI updates etc.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
If we upgrade archive
in the next release, I believe it'll be 0.225.4. After that, the package will be deleted from the codebase and no longer published to JSR. I think that deprecation notice reflects that correctly. Do you have another suggestion?
To clarify, are you saying that if a bug is found with archive
, we might re-create the package and publish the bug fix? If so, I think that's too cumbersome a process and we should just urge users to use tar
and iterate on that.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think @std/tar
is not ready yet to replace @std/archive
. There seem some limitation that @std/tar
has, but @std/archive
doesn't have. ref: #6019
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hm... Fair point. I'll change this to just say "in the future". We can re-visit later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM
No description provided.