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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2015-September/141595.html below:

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

• Previous message (by thread): [Python-Dev] Choosing an official stance towards module deprecation in Python 3
• Next message (by thread): [Python-Dev] Choosing an official stance towards module deprecation in Python 3
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On 08.09.15 19:59, Brett Cannon 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

Of course #2 LGTM. What if at the same time add Py3k warning in next 2.7 
bugfix release?

• Previous message (by thread): [Python-Dev] Choosing an official stance towards module deprecation in Python 3
• Next message (by thread): [Python-Dev] Choosing an official stance towards module deprecation in Python 3
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

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