The --dependency-check-properties is more confusing than helpful, and is superseded by --clj-watson-properties.
So
Let's go ahead and deprecate it.
Ideas for deprecating -d
Option 1: Do nothing - continue to support.
Con: The option is confusing
Con: we have to maintain and make sure it works
Option 2: Turf it, breaking change.
This seems ok to me.
Con: breaks usage for x number of users. Maybe x = 0?
Pro: simplifies our life.
Option 3: Stop documenting the feature and warn if it is used.
Usage and README would not describe the feature and warn that it is slated for deletion if used.
Pro: gives users time to adapt.
Con: It is a burden on us to test/support for a bit longer.
Decision
@seancorfield has chosen option 3 for now.
A future release will likely implement option 2.
From https://github.com/clj-holmes/clj-watson/pull/106#issuecomment-2297338429
Currently
The
--dependency-check-properties
is more confusing than helpful, and is superseded by--clj-watson-properties
.So
Let's go ahead and deprecate it.
Ideas for deprecating -d
Option 1: Do nothing - continue to support.
Con: The option is confusing Con: we have to maintain and make sure it works
Option 2: Turf it, breaking change.
This seems ok to me. Con: breaks usage for x number of users. Maybe x = 0? Pro: simplifies our life.
Option 3: Stop documenting the feature and warn if it is used.
Usage and README would not describe the feature and warn that it is slated for deletion if used. Pro: gives users time to adapt. Con: It is a burden on us to test/support for a bit longer.
Decision
@seancorfield has chosen option 3 for now. A future release will likely implement option 2.
Next Steps
I can follow up with PR if that would help you.