On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 1:54 PM Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> wrote:
Don't think of this as a failure. Think of it as an opportunity: we've identified a weakness in our deprecation process. Let's fix that process, make sure that *developers* will see the warning in 3.8 or 3.9, and not raise an exception until 4.0 or 4.1.
So HOW are you going to make sure developers see it? Currently it requires some extra steps or flags, which are not well known. What change are you proposing for 3.8 that will ensure that this actually gets solved? Otherwise, all you're doing is saying "I wish this problem would just go away". Library authors can start _right now_ fixing their code so it's more 3.8 compatible. ("More" because 3.8 doesn't actually break anything.) What is actually gained by waiting longer, and how do you propose to make this transition easier? ChrisA