Skip to content

Document 3.13, 3.14, 4.0 and future removals #93986

New issue

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

#

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

Already on GitHub? # to your account

Jump to bottom
Closed
wants to merge 8 commits into from
Closed

Document 3.13, 3.14, 4.0 and future removals #93986

wants to merge 8 commits into from

Conversation

hugovk
Copy link
Member

@hugovk hugovk commented Jun 18, 2022 •
edited by gpshead
Loading

Follow on from #92308.

This lists in the What's New page some more deprecations pending removal in:

@bedevere-bot bedevere-bot added docs Documentation in the Doc dir awaiting review labels Jun 18, 2022
@warsaw
Copy link
Member

warsaw commented Jun 18, 2022

I wonder if there was some automation we can add to help ensure that planned deprecations actually happen? Like, maybe a JSON file or some such where the deprecations are recorded (or a script to parse the docs or code). Then, when the new version is created at main, the automation would open some release blockers on those deprecations. What do you think?

@arhadthedev
Copy link
Member

arhadthedev commented Jun 18, 2022 •
edited
Loading

@warsaw Probably, grepping docs for .. deprecated-removed:: and headers for Py_DEPRECATED would be better than maintaining another list file.

Edit: for \.\. deprecated-removed:: [^ ]+ (\d+).(\d+) and Py_DEPRECATED\((\d+).(\d+)\).

@hugovk
Copy link
Member Author

hugovk commented Jun 19, 2022

I wonder if there was some automation we can add to help ensure that planned deprecations actually happen?

Yes, using the new warnings._deprecated method will make it clear with RuntimeErrors after the relevant alpha: https://discuss.python.org/t/introducing-warnings-deprecated/14856

hauntsaninja
hauntsaninja reviewed Jun 20, 2022
View reviewed changes
@hugovk hugovk mentioned this pull request Jul 29, 2022
Closed
@ezio-melotti
Copy link
Member

I wonder if there was some automation we can add to help ensure that planned deprecations actually happen?

See also:

ezio-melotti
ezio-melotti reviewed Jul 29, 2022
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@ezio-melotti ezio-melotti left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I left a comment and a couple of minor suggestions -- feel free to disregard them if you think the current version is better.

@hugovk @ezio-melotti
Improve wording and linking
6f28fb9 
Co-authored-by: Ezio Melotti <ezio.melotti@gmail.com>
@ezio-melotti ezio-melotti mentioned this pull request Aug 4, 2022
Closed
ezio-melotti
ezio-melotti reviewed Aug 11, 2022
View reviewed changes
@CAM-Gerlach
Copy link
Member

I wonder if there was some automation we can add to help ensure that planned deprecations actually happen?

You could also fire a Sphinx warning in the else branch here in the directive (with a check for whether its an alpha, and perhaps an :option: to disable it for special cases), just like warnings._deprecated does.

@hugovk @ezio-melotti
Whitespace fix
5787b27 
Co-authored-by: Ezio Melotti <ezio.melotti@gmail.com>
@CAM-Gerlach CAM-Gerlach mentioned this pull request Aug 12, 2022
Closed
33 tasks
bdarnell
bdarnell reviewed Feb 7, 2023
View reviewed changes
Doc/whatsnew/3.12.rst Outdated
@@ -226,6 +239,19 @@ although there is currently no date scheduled for their removal.
:keyword:`for`, :keyword:`if`, :keyword:`in`, :keyword:`is` and :keyword:`or`.
In a future release it will be changed to a syntax error. (:gh:`87999`)

* :func:`asyncio.get_event_loop` emits a :exc:`DeprecationWarning` if there is
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The deprecation plans for this function have changed. See #100970 for the updated deprecation notice.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks for the note! This PR has got pretty out of date...

@hugovk hugovk mentioned this pull request May 26, 2023
Merged
@hugovk
Copy link
Member Author

hugovk commented Aug 16, 2023

Will try again in a new PR :)

@hugovk hugovk closed this Aug 16, 2023
@hugovk hugovk deleted the document-pending-removals branch August 16, 2023 19:19
@hugovk hugovk mentioned this pull request Aug 16, 2023
Merged
@hugovk
Copy link
Member Author

hugovk commented Aug 16, 2023

Please see PR #108055 instead 🚀

# for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? # to comment
Reviewers

@bdarnell bdarnell bdarnell left review comments

@hauntsaninja hauntsaninja hauntsaninja left review comments

@ezio-melotti ezio-melotti ezio-melotti left review comments

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
awaiting review docs Documentation in the Doc dir skip issue skip news
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
8 participants
@hugovk @warsaw @arhadthedev @ezio-melotti @CAM-Gerlach @bdarnell @hauntsaninja @bedevere-bot