updated documentation for python version for reppy

[umairnsr87]

This PR fixes issue #5226

[umairnsr87]

seems good to me now @Gallaecio ....

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #5231 (18effa4) into master (47a281d) will decrease coverage by 0.50%.
The diff coverage is n/a.

❗ Current head 18effa4 differs from pull request most recent head 572d347. Consider uploading reports for the commit 572d347 to get more accurate results

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #5231      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   88.45%   87.94%   -0.51%     
==========================================
  Files         162      162              
  Lines       10529    10417     -112     
  Branches     1522     1520       -2     
==========================================
- Hits         9313     9161     -152     
- Misses        942      976      +34     
- Partials      274      280       +6     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
scrapy/robotstxt.py	73.33% <0.00%> (-24.20%)	⬇️
scrapy/core/downloader/handlers/__init__.py	83.33% <0.00%> (-9.40%)	⬇️
scrapy/squeues.py	92.85% <0.00%> (-7.15%)	⬇️
scrapy/utils/ssl.py	65.85% <0.00%> (-4.88%)	⬇️
scrapy/pqueues.py	95.86% <0.00%> (-3.31%)	⬇️
scrapy/downloadermiddlewares/cookies.py	94.73% <0.00%> (-2.67%)	⬇️
scrapy/extensions/memdebug.py	45.00% <0.00%> (-2.62%)	⬇️
scrapy/core/downloader/__init__.py	90.97% <0.00%> (-1.51%)	⬇️
scrapy/extensions/debug.py	44.73% <0.00%> (-1.42%)	⬇️
scrapy/extensions/throttle.py	44.89% <0.00%> (-1.11%)	⬇️
... and 59 more

[wRAR]

Should we link to the upstream issue and/or say that this may be false if the library is already fixed?

[umairnsr87]

Should we link to the upstream issue and/or say that this may be false if the library is already fixed?

Can you please explain @wRAR ?

[wRAR]

I mean currently reppy doesn't work on 3.9 but it can be fixed in the future which will make our doc incorrect.

[umairnsr87]

I mean currently reppy doesn't work on 3.9 but it can be fixed in the future which will make our doc incorrect.

yes right... So what do you suggest @wRAR ?

[umairnsr87]

Should we link to the upstream issue and/or say that this may be false if the library is already fixed?

@Gallaecio and @wRAR should we do this in our docs ?

[Gallaecio]

I agree with @wRAR. Maybe something something like this?

   .. warning:: `Upstream issue #122 
      <https://github.com/seomoz/reppy/issues/122>`_ prevents reppy usage in 
      Python 3.9+.

[umairnsr87]

I agree with @wRAR. Maybe something something like this?

   .. warning:: `Upstream issue #122 
      <https://github.com/seomoz/reppy/issues/122>`_ prevents reppy usage in 
      Python 3.9+.

Updated @Gallaecio .Thanks ...!