On Wed, Mar 1, 2023, at 09:11, Dave Mitchell wrote: > I'm particularly troubled that we have added two major deprecations > very late in this release cycle: > > 5.37.9: deprecate Foo'Bar > 5.37.10: (not even released yet): change 'experimental' to 'deprecated': > ~~, given, when, etc. > > There seems to have been a lot of CPAN test suite breakage from these. > Even if the fixes turn out to be trivial, and even if p5p volunteer to do > all the fixing, it doesn't leave a lot of time to get new releases out and > settled in. I would like to see some details on the amount of breakage from 5.37.9 — I'm sure it's out there, I just haven't yet laid my eyes on it. Not shipping the ~~ deprecation in final-zero at this point seems like probably the right move, anyway. > So I think that > a) such deprecations in future should only come early in the blead release > cycle; I definitely agree with this. All this said: I think it's bad practice for an author to have their library fail user (not automated / smoke) tests on new deprecation warnings. The code is going to run just fine. They're the one who needs alerting. There are a bunch of arguments to be made on both sides here, and in the end the problem will remain: stuff got broken and needs to not be so broken by the time of final-zero. -- rjbsThread Previous | Thread Next