bpo-41825: restructure docs for the os.wait*() family #22356
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks for the significant improvements to the os.wait*() docs, @birkenfeld!
I verified the new waitid() content against the following man page, as well as locally verifying the cases where ChildProcessError is raised. Other than a few specific parts where I have suggestions, it mostly looks good to me (it would be a very clear improvement as-is, so certainly feel free to include some or none of my suggestions if you disagree with any).
|
When you're done making the requested changes, leave the comment: |
|
I have made the requested changes; please review again |
|
Thanks for making the requested changes! @iritkatriel: please review the changes made to this pull request. |
|
The doc build has errors. |
iritkatriel
dismissed
their stale review
merge conflicts were resolved, but I did not re-review so not ready to approve.
Co-authored-by: Kyle Stanley <aeros167@gmail.com>
|
Just FYI, the force-push invalidated my mostly-complete review, so it will be some additional time while I recover and remake it. |
Yeah, it's better to just push with additional commits (not force push). This way the reviewer can see what changed since the last review. We squash the commits when we merge so it doesn't matter. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Overall, this seems like a quite helpful change. I did have a some questions and comments to clarify points that I as a non-expert reader found ambiguous, confusing, unclear or potentially contradictory, and a number of suggestions with textual and reST syntax tweaks to fix typos/grammar issues, fix/improve the reST syntax, clarify the text and be consistent with current docs conventions. Thanks!
FYI, you might already be aware, but you can easily apply a bunch of suggestions at once by going to the Files changed tab, clicking Add to batch on each suggestion you want and then clicking Commit. You can also reply with your own modified suggestions, add those and commit them instead at the same time.
Misc/NEWS.d/next/Documentation/2020-09-22-12-32-16.bpo-41825.npcaCb.rst
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
Co-authored-by: C.A.M. Gerlach <CAM.Gerlach@Gerlach.CAM>
Co-authored-by: C.A.M. Gerlach <CAM.Gerlach@Gerlach.CAM>
Co-authored-by: C.A.M. Gerlach <CAM.Gerlach@Gerlach.CAM>
Co-authored-by: C.A.M. Gerlach <CAM.Gerlach@Gerlach.CAM>
|
Thanks for the review! All your suggestions/comments should be addressed. |
CAM-Gerlach
added
needs backport to 3.10
Co-authored-by: C.A.M. Gerlach <CAM.Gerlach@Gerlach.CAM>
|
Sorry for missing these, added. |
No need to be sorry—it was me who missed one, if not both of them :) |
|
Thank you @birkenfeld, @aeros and @CAM-Gerlach. |
|
Thanks @birkenfeld for the PR, and @iritkatriel for merging it 🌮🎉.. I'm working now to backport this PR to: 3.10, 3.11. |
(cherry picked from commit 492dc02) Co-authored-by: Georg Brandl <georg@python.org>
|
GH-99840 is a backport of this pull request to the 3.11 branch. |
|
Sorry, @birkenfeld and @iritkatriel, I could not cleanly backport this to |
Mostly fixes up the specific docs of
waitid, so that basic usage and all flags are explained without having to consult the manpage.While doing that, I noticed a few issues with the other
wait*functions. I tried to reorder them andW*constants to be sequential, and clearly mark which flag can be used for which function.https://bugs.python.org/issue41825
Fixes #85991