[issue33155] Use super().method instead in Logging

Raymond Hettinger added the comment: I agree that this shouldn't be done for logging and that likely it shouldn't be done for most modules. -- nosy: +rhettinger resolution: -> rejected stage: patch review -> resolved status: open -> closed ___

[issue33155] Use super().method instead in Logging

Vinay Sajip added the comment: See the comments on bpo-31853. I agree with the consensus there that these changes aren't worth doing: msg314518 msg314520 msg314521 So, I propose to close this as "not a bug" which in this context means "not an enhancement that's worth doing". --

[issue33155] Use super().method instead in Logging

Change by Raymond Hettinger : -- assignee: -> vinay.sajip ___ Python tracker ___

[issue33155] Use super().method instead in Logging

Change by Mads Jensen : -- keywords: +patch pull_requests: +5999 stage: -> patch review ___ Python tracker ___

[issue33155] Use super().method instead in Logging

Change by Serhiy Storchaka : -- nosy: +vinay.sajip type: -> enhancement versions: +Python 3.8 ___ Python tracker ___

[issue33155] Use super().method instead in Logging

New submission from Mads Jensen : There are lots of legacy calls in the form of ClassName.method, which should be replaced with super().method. This is an issue in many modules; I've been asked to create a report for each module that the PR touches. -- components: