(sending again due to prior sender typo) given the rightfully reasserted constraints that seems a reasonable course of action,
i'd prefer to keep it reopened instead of won't fix, and i'd like to see a revising of the deprecation policy, since as things as https://github.com/pytest-dev/pytest/labels/mark-issue are impossible to fix without being able to break things in a sensible way (its just too much of a mess) -- Ronny Am 18.05.2017 um 22:05 schrieb Bruno Oliveira: > > > On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 2:25 PM Floris Bruynooghe <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > My main objection was purely on the fact that we basically disobey the > deprecation policy right after introducing it by doing this. > > > Hmm you are right, I think this is the central point: introducing this > change is known to possibly break things, so we should obey our > deprecation policy of at least two minor versions before introducing > such a change, so it can't get out in the next release regardless if > it it is 4.0 or 3.1. > > If we do > go with Ronny's approach of just bumping the version number when > breaking backwards compat (which is what setuptools and pip and the > like do afaik) then we really should update that policy to reflect so. > I just thought the reason the policy was introduced was because of > user feedback on our earlier behaviour where we usually randomly > justified breakages because it made development more convenient. > > > To be fair, this change was introduced not because it makes > development easier, but because of a user's request > (https://github.com/pytest-dev/pytest/issues/2147): the subtle > differences between old style and new style classes can be annoying. > > Given all we've discussed so far, I think the change in the end is not > worth the hassle and the possibility of breaking the API further. My > proposal: > > 1. Drop the new-style class changes (merge #2414). > 2. Close the original user request > (https://github.com/pytest-dev/pytest/issues/2147) as "won't fix", > detailing the reasons as we discussed here. > 3. Release 3.1. \o/ > > What do you guys say? Ronny? > > Cheers, > > > _______________________________________________ > pytest-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pytest-dev
_______________________________________________ pytest-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pytest-dev
