PEP 594: Revise EOL dates mentioned to reflect relevant Python versions #2290
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
JelleZijlstra
approved these changes
Feb 1, 2022
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looks good, but let's leave this to @brettcannon to decide.
CAM-Gerlach
force-pushed
the
pep-594-update-dates
branch
from
856de20 to
e6d3a8b
Compare
brettcannon
approved these changes
Feb 1, 2022
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Per the consensus of the discussion in #2262 , it doesn't really make sense to mention the EOL date of Python 3.11 with the retargetting of PEP-0594 for Python 3.11-3.13, as opposed to Python 3.10 (last version without the warning) and/or Python 3.12 (last version with the deprecated modules). This revises that PEP to add both useful dates; I can revise this to eliminate one or the other can be eliminated if the PEP author desires, but I included both here for completeness. Thanks.