Review requested:

• @nodejs/loaders
• @nodejs/modules

No, we need to keep the language about it being removed in a future version.

No, we need to keep the language about it being removed in a future version.

Why?

Because it's stronger. It means you must refactor, it's not just a recommendation. They should know that this is coming.

I agree that the existing verbiage is better than the proposal because we're pretty darn sure upgrading is required (whereas the proposal makes it sound like merely a better option).

Well we plan to remove it, but we can't know for sure if we are definitely going to remove it.

I agree that the existing verbiage is better than the proposal

Surely you don't mean that, the current warning is not correct English.

Surely you don't mean that, the current warning is not correct English.

I assume he means that the gist of the current warning is better than the proposed alternative. As in, just fix the grammar error without changing the intent of what we're trying to say.

Surely you don't mean that, the current warning is not correct English.

I assume he means that the gist of the current warning is better than the proposed alternative. As in, just fix the grammar error without changing the intent of what we're trying to say.

Yes, the minor typographic error aside, the current is better information for the user. I think it would be better to correct the current message.

Surely you don't mean that, the current warning is not correct English.

I assume he means that the gist of the current warning is better than the proposed alternative. As in, just fix the grammar error without changing the intent of what we're trying to say.

Yes, the minor typographic error aside, the current is better information for the user. I think it would be better to correct the current message.

What would be your suggestion?

CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/53102/

CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/53268/

Landed in b5da2f4