Message396797
Steve: it seems to me that the goal of normal deprecation process is, given that a functionality is available and documented, prepare to find a replacement for it by some future version.
In this case it's documented not to be available and doesn't work so this should perhaps fall under fixing a bug?
It's true that this is backwards incompatible for the reason you pointed out (and I missed), but I think breaking compatibility is ok in new versions for bug fixes? (as long as it's added to "what's new", which I haven't done yet).
If I'm wrong about this, I'll go ahead and make another PR for deprecation and close this one.. |
|
Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
2021-06-30 20:00:47 | andrei.avk | set | recipients:
+ andrei.avk, paul.moore, tim.golden, zach.ware, eryksun, steve.dower, kamilturek |
2021-06-30 20:00:47 | andrei.avk | set | messageid: <1625083247.8.0.429477576794.issue33140@roundup.psfhosted.org> |
2021-06-30 20:00:47 | andrei.avk | link | issue33140 messages |
2021-06-30 20:00:47 | andrei.avk | create | |
|