Some 2.0 release note tweaks #9310
Conversation
docs/releases/2.0.txt
Outdated
| @@ -52,7 +52,7 @@ Simplified URL routing syntax | |||
| The new :func:`django.urls.path()` function allows a simpler, more readable URL | |||
| routing syntax. For example, this example from previous Django releases:: | |||
|
|
|||
| url(r'^articles/(?P<year>[0-9]{4})/$', views.year_archive), | |||
| url(r'^articles/(?P<year>[0-9]+)/$', views.year_archive), | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I found this confusing because just 'int' is used below which isn't bounded to 4 digits. I thought it best to make the regex url as close to the path.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I guess it'd be better to describe how the new syntax may be less restrictive.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think changing the example to match is sufficient, it avoids distraction. We could maybe change the example entirely to use a model PK, which is a more common use case?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Well, I think it's an important consideration when switching to the new syntax. I'll make a proposal.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I agree it is, I just though the release note announcing the feature isn't necessarily the best place. Then again, maybe it is.
| @@ -776,7 +776,8 @@ See :ref:`deprecated-features-1.10` for details on these changes. | |||
|
|
|||
| * The ``shell --plain`` option is removed. | |||
|
|
|||
| * The ``django.core.urlresolvers`` module is removed. | |||
| * The ``django.core.urlresolvers`` module is removed in favor of its new | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This one is kind of mentioned above in the "see deprecated features in 1.10" link, but it took me some time to notice when upgrading and I thought inlining it here would be helpful since I think it will be very common.
docs/releases/2.0.txt
Outdated
| @@ -52,7 +52,7 @@ Simplified URL routing syntax | |||
| The new :func:`django.urls.path()` function allows a simpler, more readable URL | |||
| routing syntax. For example, this example from previous Django releases:: | |||
|
|
|||
| url(r'^articles/(?P<year>[0-9]{4})/$', views.year_archive), | |||
| url(r'^articles/(?P<year>[0-9]+)/$', views.year_archive), | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I guess it'd be better to describe how the new syntax may be less restrictive.
docs/ref/checks.txt
Outdated
| @@ -96,7 +96,8 @@ Backwards compatibility | |||
| ----------------------- | |||
|
|
|||
| The following checks are performed to warn the user of any potential problems | |||
| that might occur as a result of a version upgrade. | |||
| that might occur as a result of a version upgrade. Some have been removed since | |||
| they were added as per the deprecation timeline. | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm not sure if this will be helpful. Readers may not know what the deprecation timeline is and even if they do, the timeline doesn't discuss particulars of what checks are removed when. Maybe it's better just to remove old compatibility checks from the documentation when they're removed. I think the main reason to leave the docs for other removed checks is so that their code isn't reused. That's not an issue here since the code is based on the version number.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
So, keep the heading and replace all content with a paragraph like "Sometimes checks are added for backwards compatibility between Django versions. At current there are no such checks, as they've been removed since they were no longer needed." ?
timgraham
force-pushed
the
release_note_tweaks
branch
from
1975b0b
to
a7dbfa6
Compare
Just a few tweaks I noticed while reading through.