[3.x] Remove deprecated method from 2.x

[JakeWharton]

No description provided.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #6769 into 3.x will decrease coverage by 0.02%.
The diff coverage is n/a.

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##                3.x    #6769      +/-   ##
============================================
- Coverage     98.19%   98.17%   -0.03%     
+ Complexity     6196     6193       -3     
============================================
  Files           679      679              
  Lines         44622    44621       -1     
  Branches       6138     6138              
============================================
- Hits          43817    43807      -10     
- Misses          283      290       +7     
- Partials        522      524       +2

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ	Complexity Δ
...tivex/rxjava3/internal/functions/ObjectHelper.java	100% <ø> (ø)	21 <0> (-1)	⬇️
...l/operators/observable/ObservableFlatMapMaybe.java	83.8% <0%> (-11.27%)	2% <0%> (ø)
...nternal/operators/observable/ObservableCreate.java	93.16% <0%> (-5.13%)	2% <0%> (ø)
...rnal/operators/flowable/FlowableFlatMapSingle.java	94.18% <0%> (-2.33%)	2% <0%> (ø)
...tivex/rxjava3/disposables/CompositeDisposable.java	98.14% <0%> (-1.86%)	39% <0%> (-1%)
...ternal/operators/observable/ObservablePublish.java	97.29% <0%> (-1.81%)	16% <0%> (-1%)
...ternal/operators/completable/CompletableMerge.java	95.94% <0%> (-1.36%)	2% <0%> (ø)
...ava3/internal/operators/parallel/ParallelJoin.java	92.04% <0%> (-1.14%)	3% <0%> (ø)
...operators/observable/ObservableMergeWithMaybe.java	99.09% <0%> (-0.91%)	2% <0%> (ø)
...perators/single/SingleFlatMapIterableFlowable.java	95.83% <0%> (-0.84%)	2% <0%> (ø)
... and 13 more

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update f96821f...f4a7e9f. Read the comment docs.

[akarnokd]

I kept this so that when writing a standard method, one doesn't accidentally null-check an auto-boxed primitive.

[JakeWharton]

I see. I was about to remove ObjectsHelper.requireNonNull in favor of Objects.requireNonNull.

[akarnokd]

Well, if all uses get replaced with Objects.requireNonNull, this overload wouldn't come into play. I suppose Objects.requireNonNull is desugared and inlined across all API levels already, right?

[JakeWharton]

Yep! It's actually the first API that was desugared and has been supported since AGP 3.2.

[akarnokd]

Okay then.