Future of the flex-child rule? about assembly HOT 3 CLOSED

I'd prefer like option 1. I don't think this migration would be too bad from Studio's POV and we'd come out of it with simpler, clearer CSS.

from assembly.

Agree with option 1, let's tear the band-aid off!

from assembly.

I think deprecating flex-child makes sense. Should we consider dropping the word parent from the flex-parent modifiers as well?

Right now the flex classes distinguish between parent and child. If we switch from flex-child--grow → flex-grow then the naming convention is lost on the child classes, but remains with the parent classes.

Additional ideas:

1. Deprecate flex-child and remove child and parent from remaining classes. This is a pattern Tailwind uses. While this change would more closely follow patterns of other Assembly classes, it would increase the amount of breaking changes.
   Example: flex-parent → flex
   Example: flex-child--grow → flex-grow

2. Deprecate flex-child and keep child in remaining classes. This option would reduce the amount of breaking changes and keep the parent/child naming convention.
   Example: flex-child--grow has no change

from assembly.