A RetroSearch Logo

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Search Query:

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2015-September/141502.html below:

[Python-Dev] Choosing an official stance towards module deprecation in Python 3

[Python-Dev] Choosing an official stance towards module deprecation in Python 3 [Python-Dev] Choosing an official stance towards module deprecation in Python 3Donald Stufft donald at stufft.io
Tue Sep 8 19:08:06 CEST 2015
On September 8, 2015 at 1:01:14 PM, Brett Cannon (bcannon at gmail.com) wrote:
> 
> The approaches to module deprecation I have seen are:
> 1. Nothing changes to the deprecation process; you deprecate a module and
> remove it in one to two releases
> 2. Deprecate the module but with no plans for removal until Python 2.7
> reaches its EOL (I have been calling this Python 4)
> 3. Document the deprecation but no actual code deprecation
> 

A riff on #1, is that it gets packaged up separately and released on PyPI, this
is basically what Django did when it removed django.contrib.comments from
Django. This kind of walks a line between 1 and 2 where the module is no longer
in the standard library, but if people are actually using those things, then
they are a fairly easy ``pip install`` away. This obviously only works for
"leaf" modules that don't have other parts of the standard library depending on
them, but #1 wouldn't work fo those anyways.

-----------------
Donald Stufft
PGP: 0x6E3CBCE93372DCFA // 7C6B 7C5D 5E2B 6356 A926 F04F 6E3C BCE9 3372 DCFA


More information about the Python-Dev mailing list

RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue

Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo

HTML: 3.2 | Encoding: UTF-8 | Version: 0.7.4