On 2024-06-05, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
> 2) Was anything really 'broken'? Most certainly no, going by the above > definition and the fact that the news item provided for a very clear > pathway to maintain compatibility that was essentially a two-line solution. I think that build failures caused by the 3.11 ⇒ 3.12 count as breakage. There was some, but not a lot of that. What I found misleading (and tripped over) was the implication that the three step migration process outlined in the news item had a reasonable likelyhood of working for a large percentage of users. If the new items had warned that anybody using one of <hundreds?> packages that won't work with 3.12 are going to have to stop after step 1 until those packages have been brought "up to date" so that they can build with 3.12. Had I known that, I wouldn't have tried the three step migration and would have simply postponed the upgrade. -- Grant
