Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

bpo-36932: use proper deprecation-removed directive #13349

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
May 21, 2019

Conversation

Carreau
Copy link
Contributor

@Carreau Carreau commented May 15, 2019

.. And update some deprecation warnings with version numbers.

https://bugs.python.org/issue36932

.. And update some deprecation warnings with version numbers.
Copy link
Member

@pganssle pganssle left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Nice, always good to see some more structure and detail added to these things.

@Carreau
Copy link
Contributor Author

Carreau commented May 16, 2019 via email

@@ -1353,7 +1353,7 @@ always available.
This function has been added on a provisional basis (see :pep:`411`
for details.) Use it only for debugging purposes.

.. deprecated:: 3.7
.. deprecated-removed:: 3.7 3.8
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Side question:
Do we really want to remove it in 3.8?
If yes -- the time window is very close.
@1st1 we need your judgment for it.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think we should drop it. asyncio no longer needs it, AFAIK Trio considered using it but decided it's too slow.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I can do it myself tomorrow.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Nice!
Thank you very much!

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@1st1 I've opened https://bugs.python.org/issue36933 yesterday to track the removal.

in Python 3.10.
.. deprecated-removed:: 3.8 3.10

The *loop* argument is deprecated and scheduled for removal
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The text should be updated.
Now it looks like:

Deprecated since version 3.8, will be removed in version 3.10: The loop argument is deprecated and scheduled for removal in Python 3.10

Looks like battology.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I spotted that and didn't wanted to change too much at once, but sure I can take care of it.

Copy link
Contributor

@asvetlov asvetlov left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Please fix deprecation texts to remove generated wordiness

@bedevere-bot
Copy link

A Python core developer has requested some changes be made to your pull request before we can consider merging it. If you could please address their requests along with any other requests in other reviews from core developers that would be appreciated.

Once you have made the requested changes, please leave a comment on this pull request containing the phrase I have made the requested changes; please review again. I will then notify any core developers who have left a review that you're ready for them to take another look at this pull request.

@Carreau
Copy link
Contributor Author

Carreau commented May 16, 2019

Thanks @asvetlov

I have made the requested changes; please review again

@bedevere-bot
Copy link

Thanks for making the requested changes!

@asvetlov: please review the changes made to this pull request.

Copy link
Contributor

@asvetlov asvetlov left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks!

@miss-islington
Copy link
Contributor

Sorry, I can't merge this PR. Reason: Base branch was modified. Review and try the merge again..

@miss-islington miss-islington merged commit d0ebf13 into python:master May 21, 2019
@miss-islington
Copy link
Contributor

Thanks @Carreau for the PR 🌮🎉.. I'm working now to backport this PR to: 3.7.
🐍🍒⛏🤖

@miss-islington
Copy link
Contributor

Sorry, @Carreau, I could not cleanly backport this to 3.7 due to a conflict.
Please backport using cherry_picker on command line.
cherry_picker d0ebf13e50dd736cdb355fa42c23837abbb88127 3.7

@asvetlov
Copy link
Contributor

Well, if doc change cannot be backported to 3.7 automatically I prefer to keep it in 3.8 only.

Thanks, @Carreau !

@Carreau
Copy link
Contributor Author

Carreau commented May 21, 2019

Well, if doc change cannot be backported to 3.7 automatically I prefer to keep it in 3.8 only.

Ok, let me know I can work on backporting it otherwise.

@Carreau Carreau deleted the deprecation-cleanup branch May 21, 2019 14:35
@asvetlov
Copy link
Contributor

Backporting would be good but I don't insist at all.
We live with existing markup for half a year, nobody complains :)

@Carreau
Copy link
Contributor Author

Carreau commented May 21, 2019

Backporting would be good but I don't insist at all.

Well, I prefer to focus on features then, (like top-level-await #13148) before beta1, once we are in the beta period I can work on applying that to 3.7.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

8 participants