Author ncoghlan
Recipients Anthony Sottile, Antony.Lee, Chris Billington, Ethan Smith, Ivan.Pozdeev, __Vano, barry, brett.cannon, christian.heimes, eric.smith, eric.snow, jaraco, mhammond, ncoghlan, pitrou, takluyver, terry.reedy, vstinner
Date 2019-01-13.20:42:16
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <1547412136.61.0.508208136078.issue33944@roundup.psfhosted.org>
In-reply-to
Content
I'm suggesting PendingDeprecationWarning because we can't *actually* deprecate anything until we provide a more transparent alternative that offers comparable functionality, and I haven't seen a credible proposal for a replacement yet.

So using PDW would truthfully indicate "We don't like this feature, and want to get rid of it as causing more problems than it solves, but also acknowledge that it is currently handling legitimate use cases that need to be addressed before we can remove it".

https://coverage.readthedocs.io/en/coverage-4.4.2/subprocess.html is one example I'm aware of that describes a legitimate use case for being able to run arbitrary code at software startup.
History
Date User Action Args
2019-01-13 20:42:18ncoghlansetrecipients: + ncoghlan, mhammond, barry, brett.cannon, terry.reedy, jaraco, pitrou, vstinner, eric.smith, christian.heimes, __Vano, eric.snow, takluyver, Antony.Lee, Ivan.Pozdeev, Anthony Sottile, Ethan Smith, Chris Billington
2019-01-13 20:42:16ncoghlansetmessageid: <1547412136.61.0.508208136078.issue33944@roundup.psfhosted.org>
2019-01-13 20:42:16ncoghlanlinkissue33944 messages
2019-01-13 20:42:16ncoghlancreate