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
Deprecate stylistic rules handled by Prettier #6342
Comments
@jeddy3 Thanks for opening the issue. I agree with the deprecation included in a major release. 👍🏼 |
Following on from #6483, let's only deprecate the rules handled by Prettier as suggested by @ybiquitous in #6311 (comment). The 8 rules not handled by Prettier are unlikely to be added to it as they need configuration options to be safe or desired. They are also not as problematic as some of our other stylistic rules as they:
We can move these rules to 3 subgroups within our "Enforce non-stylistic conventions" group:
We can then rename the:
I believe this approach will strike the best balance between our needs to:
|
@jeddy3 More balanced idea! 👍🏼 |
Alright, so that means the plugin won't be needed for a while. |
It'll give people time to, if needed, write community plugins for the rules that we deprecate. The rules in #6483 won't be deprecated, so there won't be a need for us or anyone else to write a plugin for them. |
Closed by #6504 |
I think this should be documented before the version 16 release. |
We should deprecate that stylistic rules that we froze a year ago.
Even though deprecating is a non-breaking change, we should do this as part of a major release so that we can communicate this significant change in direction.
We'd release a new version of our standard config that removes the deprecated rules. Therefore, most of our users will never see the deprecation warnings.
As such, we won't need to prepare a plugin pack of the stylistic rules. If people want to continue using the stylistic rules, they can port the rules they need to a plugin under their own namespace and outside of the Stylelint organisation.
Ref: #6311 (comment)
Ref: #5674
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: