EXP: revert #18164 - #18971

Thank you for your contribution to Astropy! 🌌 This checklist is meant to remind the package maintainers who will review this pull request of some common things to look for.

• Do the proposed changes actually accomplish desired goals?
• Do the proposed changes follow the Astropy coding guidelines?
• Are tests added/updated as required? If so, do they follow the Astropy testing guidelines?
• Are docs added/updated as required? If so, do they follow the Astropy documentation guidelines?
• Is rebase and/or squash necessary? If so, please provide the author with appropriate instructions. Also see instructions for rebase and squash.
• Did the CI pass? If no, are the failures related? If you need to run daily and weekly cron jobs as part of the PR, please apply the "Extra CI" label. Codestyle issues can be fixed by the bot.
• Is a change log needed? If yes, did the change log check pass? If no, add the "no-changelog-entry-needed" label. If this is a manual backport, use the "skip-changelog-checks" label unless special changelog handling is necessary.
• Is this a big PR that makes a "What's new?" entry worthwhile and if so, is (1) a "what's new" entry included in this PR and (2) the "whatsnew-needed" label applied?
• At the time of adding the milestone, if the milestone set requires a backport to release branch(es), apply the appropriate "backport-X.Y.x" label(s) before merge.

👋 Thank you for your draft pull request! Do you know that you can use [ci skip] or [skip ci] in your commit messages to skip running continuous integration tests until you are ready?

If you wanted to know what went wrong with 8aa1dd2 then you could have just tested that commit directly.

Adjustments would needed in any case because oldestdeps jobs are not yet reproducible.

Even if you had to tweak some indirect dependency requirement in 8aa1dd2 you'd still be in a much better position than you are right now.

actually I am not able to checkout that exact commit, even after adding your fork as a remote. Adding 28901cd on top of it should be sufficient to emulate the situation back then. Can you please give it a try ?

I already did you a huge favor by pointing you to the exact commit that ran into trouble.

I can't investigate further on my own. If you're not willing to help I can only assume there was no actual incompatibility to begin with.

The full logs have expired, but the fact that the oldest dependencies job failed is still recorded.

Unfortunately this does nothing to lift my suspicion that a mere warning could have been treated as a error, and that would not qualify as an actual incompatibility.