[zahlman]

Either software is updated or it isn't. If you're worried about "bitrot" then you bear the responsibility for your end of keeping the system up to date. (Or finding a third party to do it.) API Changes occur for a reason, and it isn't reasonable to expect other developers to make security fixes to their older versions of code in perpetuity while guaranteeing that stable interface in perpetuity. They'd never get to fix anything that isn't a security issue that way. Programmer resources are limited - especially for Python, which doesn't pay the overwhelming majority of its devs (although it can afford to pay several PSF staff).

Python is open source. Nothing prohibits you from forking the 2.7 codebase and adding your own security patches (or more substantial things like back-porting new OpenSSL support, or even cherry-picking backwards-compatible features from 3.x that you do like), for example.

I'm happy when people criticize new features in Python. But I expect to read criticism of features based on their actual merits and consequences, not on the principle that it's new or backwards-incompatible or would cause "churn".

[hamandcheese]

So we have this proposed change which will cause a bunch of needless churn.

Then we have people saying "just don't upgrade anything if you don't want to deal with the churn" but that too is a very large burden for all the reasons I mentioned.

All the reasonable adults in the room want option 3: don't do the thing that causes needless churn.

> But I expect to read criticism of features based on their actual merits and consequences, not on the principle that it's new or backwards-incompatible or would cause "churn".

I am honestly shocked to see this attitude. Churn is a very real consequence. Do you have no respect for the time of the countless devs who use python?

[zahlman]

The entire point is that proponents of the change disagree that it's "needless churn".

It's bizarre to me that expecting people to improve their code incrementally is considered a disrespect for their time.

The proposed change is not arbitrary - which can be seen by trying to imagine the alternate universe in which the reverse change were proposed. One can imagine a world in which `except:` were added to a Python that didn't support it, but certainly not one where it were made mandatory (whether for the `except BaseException:` case or the `except Exception:` case).

I assume there are people out there who would, similarly, argue that it was "needless" to make `print` into a function (and thereby break users of the `>>file` syntax). But it demonstrably and significantly makes the language better.

[hamandcheese]

If you want to talk incrementalism, then the right approach is making this an error in other parts of the Python ecosystem. Linters, mypy, pyright, etc, without make a source-breaking language change.

Imagine whatever universe you want, but we live in this one. In this universe, there is a shitload of old python. Python 2.7 isn't even completely gone. Literal lifetimes of collective time would be spent on the fallout of this change, which does not seem worth the reward.