On 2017-09-19, at 15:49, Moshe Zadka <zadka.mo...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 3:51 AM ex vito <ex.vitor...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Other than that, again, per that section's rules, not being a commiter > myself, I'm in no position to approve such a change. I wonder, however, how > "urgent" such a final change is to you and why a deprecation cycle does not > fit your purpose (even though, admittedly, it may represent more effort). > > I think that between the low likelihood that someone went crawling over the > attributes manually, the RoI of having a deprecation cycle with some > intermediate solution that later needs to be cleaned up, and the fact that > this would be a clean break (i.e., "AttributeError") rather than some obscure > error, I am at least interested in opinions about going the exception route. > > ProcMon is non-trivial to product ionize, and I'm not aware of anyone even > using it in production, other than me, let alone crawling over its internal > state.
Agreed. For completeness, the code I work with does not make use of ProcMon and I don't recall having ever used it.
_______________________________________________ Twisted-Python mailing list Twisted-Python@twistedmatrix.com https://twistedmatrix.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/twisted-python
