On Tue, Dec 7, 2021 at 9:00 AM Joao S. O. Bueno <jsbueno@python.org.br> wrote:
Sorry for stepping in - but I am seeing too many arguments in favour 
of the rules because "they are the rules", and just Victor arguing with
what is met in the "real world".

But if this update can be done by a simple search/replace on the C source of projects,
I can only perceive two scenarios this will affect: well maintained projects,
 for which it is fixable in minutes, and  stale packages, no longer released 
that "happen to work" when someone downloads and builds for new 
Python versions. In these cases, the build will fail. If the person trying 
the build can't fix it, but can take the error to a proper, or high visibility, 
forum, someone will be able to come to the fix, leading to renewed 
visibility for the otherwise stale package. 

It sounds like you (like probably many others) don't quite understand why "the rules" exist.

Please trust me that what you perceive as simple updates, is not so simple when you take the whole ecosystem of dependencies into account. You may recall the long transition from Python 2 to 3. This was so painful in part because the core dev team (led by myself) was similarly optimistic about "oh, people can easily fix the few small things that will crop up". In practice, things like this take a very long time to fix everywhere, as people are waiting for their dependencies to solve the issue first before they can even start testing, and so on. (For example, many libraries still don't have wheels for Python 3.10, even though it was released over two months ago and 3.10.1 is already out.)

--
--Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido)