Deprecations: Any reason left for warning stage?

[Steven Schveighoffer via Digitalmars-d]

On 9/26/14 12:15 PM, David Nadlinger wrote:
> As Walter mentioned in a recent pull request discussion [1], the first
> formal deprecation protocol we came up with for language changes looked
> something like this:
>
> 1. remove from documentation
> 2. warning
> 3. deprecation
> 4. error
>
> (The "remove from documentation" step is a bit questionable, but that's
> not my point here.)
>
> However, in the meantime deprecations were changed to be informational
> by default. You now need to explicitly need to pass -de to turn them
> into errors that halt compilation. Thus, I think we should simply get
> rid of the warning step, just like we (de facto) eliminated the
> "scheduled for deprecation" stage from the Phobos process.
>
> Thoughts?

Case against: 
https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/phobos/pull/2254#issuecomment-52764718

-Steve