bpo-36932: use proper deprecation-removed directive by Carreau · Pull Request #13349

bpo-36932: use proper deprecation-removed directive by Carreau · Pull Request #13349 · python/cpython

.. And update some deprecation warnings with version numbers.

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.

I'd love to be able to build an index of deprecated/removal of this is used consistently. Though not want to write a Sphinx extension...

…

On Wed, May 15, 2019, 19:28 Paul Ganssle ***@***.***> wrote: ***@***.**** approved this pull request. Nice, always good to see some more structure and detail added to these things. — You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#13349?email_source=notifications&email_token=AACR5T2D6TFN7YNG6SNRDK3PVTBGLA5CNFSM4HNHR2KKYY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFWFIHK3DMKJSXC5LFON2FEZLWNFSXPKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGOBYY65MQ#pullrequestreview-238153394>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AACR5TZGSOCDTMKBM2AXGTLPVTBGLANCNFSM4HNHR2KA> .

		for details.) Use it only for debugging purposes.

		.. deprecated:: 3.7
		.. deprecated-removed:: 3.7 3.8

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.

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.

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.

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!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

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

		The loop argument is deprecated and scheduled for removal

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.

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.

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

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.

Thanks @asvetlov

I have made the requested changes; please review again

Thanks for making the requested changes!

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

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks!

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

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

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

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

Thanks, @Carreau !

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 deleted the deprecation-cleanup branch

May 21, 2019 14:35

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

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.