From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel
Subject: Re: Delete variables obsolete since Emacs 23
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2020 17:36:31 +0300
Message-ID: <83blj6em8g.fsf@gnu.org>
References: <fdimdgyaxf.fsf@norden.tntech.edu> <83r1s4ftc7.fsf@gnu.org>
 <alpine.NEB.2.21.2008191022420394.24046@sdf.lonestar.org>
Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214";
	logging-data="30436"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io"
Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org
To: Gregory Heytings <ghe@sdf.org>
Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Wed Aug 19 16:37:13 2020
Return-path: <emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org>
Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org
Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17])
	by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256)
	(Exim 4.92)
	(envelope-from <emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org>)
	id 1k8PDF-0007qU-9T
	for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 19 Aug 2020 16:37:13 +0200
Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:43124 helo=lists1p.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1)
	(envelope-from <emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org>)
	id 1k8PDE-0006rG-Bf
	for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 19 Aug 2020 10:37:12 -0400
Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:47726)
 by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256)
 (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from <eliz@gnu.org>) id 1k8PCi-00065X-AU
 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 19 Aug 2020 10:36:40 -0400
Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:49265)
 by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1)
 (envelope-from <eliz@gnu.org>)
 id 1k8PCi-0001hf-0u; Wed, 19 Aug 2020 10:36:40 -0400
Original-Received: from [176.228.60.248] (port=1050 helo=home-c4e4a596f7)
 by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256)
 (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from <eliz@gnu.org>)
 id 1k8PCh-0008Mp-Dv; Wed, 19 Aug 2020 10:36:39 -0400
In-Reply-To: <alpine.NEB.2.21.2008191022420394.24046@sdf.lonestar.org>
 (emacs-devel@gnu.org)
X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." <emacs-devel.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/emacs-devel>,
 <mailto:emacs-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:emacs-devel@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:emacs-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel>,
 <mailto:emacs-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org
Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel"
 <emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org>
Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:254011
Archived-At: <http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel/254011>

> Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2020 08:31:55 +0000
> From: Gregory Heytings via "Emacs development discussions." <emacs-devel@gnu.org>
> 
> >> The phrase "may be removed" seems a bit vague.  Would "will be removed" 
> >> or "will probably be removed" be more accurate?
> >
> > No, it won't.  Primarily because we don't really know whether we will 
> > remove it, let alone when.  It depends on too many factors that we 
> > cannot predict.
> 
> In that case, would a two-step process not be better?  First declaring the 
> function "obsolete", and when it is known that it will be removed declare 
> it "pending-removal" with a target major version.

How would it help?  It will definitely complicate our procedures, but
I see no gains.  Do you?