06.12.19 21:16, Kyle Stanley пише:
Would it be reasonable to require an minimum amount of versions to be
specified (such as n versions ahead), but provide flexibility in terms
to delaying the removal, as needed? IMO, it would be more convenient for
users to have a "minimum removal" version in
Victor Stinner wrote:
> Isn't it already the current unwritten deprecation process?
Personally, I don't think we should rely on an unwritten process for
something as important and potentially breaking as a deprecation process.
Regardless of the outcome of this discussion, I think we should try to
Victor Stinner wrote:
> Hi,
> Le mer. 27 nov. 2019 à 19:40, Brett Cannon br...@python.org a écrit :
> > What do people think of the idea of requiring all
> > deprecations specifying a version that the feature will be removed in
> > (which under our
> > annual release cadence would be at least the
Hi,
Le mer. 27 nov. 2019 à 19:40, Brett Cannon a écrit :
> What do people think of the idea of requiring all deprecations specifying a
> version that the feature will be removed in (which under our annual release
> cadence would be at least the third release from the start of the
>
Nick Coghlan wrote:
> On Thu., 28 Nov. 2019, 4:43 am Brett Cannon, br...@python.org wrote:
> > What do people think of the idea of requiring all
> > deprecations specifying
> > a version that the feature will be removed in (which under our annual
> > release cadence would be at least the third
On Thu., 28 Nov. 2019, 4:43 am Brett Cannon, wrote:
> What do people think of the idea of requiring all deprecations specifying
> a version that the feature will be removed in (which under our annual
> release cadence would be at least the third release from the start of the
> deprecation, hence
On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 10:02 AM Brett Cannon wrote:
> But there is other things that might break your code between releases,
> such as bug fixes, language changes that become the default, etc. Are
> deprecations the biggest pain point in transitioning to a new Python
> version for people, or is
Ethan Furman wrote:
> On 11/27/2019 10:38 AM, Brett Cannon wrote:
> > What do people think of the idea of requiring all
> > deprecations specifying a version that the feature will be removed in
> > (which under our
> > annual release cadence would be at least the third release from the start
> >
On 11/27/2019 10:38 AM, Brett Cannon wrote:
What do people think of the idea of requiring all deprecations specifying a
version that the feature will be removed in (which under our annual release
cadence would be at least the third release from the start of the deprecation,
hence the
> What do people think of the idea of requiring all deprecations specifying
a version that the feature will be removed in (which under our annual
release cadence would be at least the third release from the start of the
deprecation, hence the deprecation being public for 2 years)? And that we
also
10 matches
Mail list logo
