Repository navigation
PEP 594 Removing dead batteries from stdlib #86777
Description
| BPO | 42611 |
|---|---|
| Nosy | @terryjreedy, @tiran, @jkloth, @isidentical, @aeros |
| PRs |
Note: these values reflect the state of the issue at the time it was migrated and might not reflect the current state.
Show more details
GitHub fields:
assignee = None
closed_at = None
created_at = <Date 2020-12-10.04:51:12.046>
labels = ['type-feature', 'library', '3.10']
title = 'PEP 594 Removing dead batteries from stdlib'
updated_at = <Date 2020-12-12.01:54:23.481>
user = 'https://github.com/aeros'bugs.python.org fields:
activity = <Date 2020-12-12.01:54:23.481>
actor = 'terry.reedy'
assignee = 'none'
closed = False
closed_date = None
closer = None
components = ['Library (Lib)']
creation = <Date 2020-12-10.04:51:12.046>
creator = 'aeros'
dependencies = []
files = []
hgrepos = []
issue_num = 42611
keywords = []
message_count = 2.0
messages = ['382815', '382898']
nosy_count = 5.0
nosy_names = ['terry.reedy', 'christian.heimes', 'jkloth', 'BTaskaya', 'aeros']
pr_nums = ['23728']
priority = 'normal'
resolution = None
stage = None
status = 'open'
superseder = None
type = 'enhancement'
url = 'https://bugs.python.org/issue42611'
versions = ['Python 3.10']
Activity
aeros commentedon Dec 10, 2020
This issue was created for the purpose of tracking any changes related to PEP-594 (Removing dead batteries from stdlib), and any relevant discussions about the modules being removed.
terryjreedy commentedon Dec 12, 2020
Until a pep is approved, discussion of its ideas belong elsewhere; an issue is only needed for a proposed implementation Is PR 23728 purely for discussion leading to possible approval of the PEP, or for merging regardless of the PEP fate?
[-]PEP 594[/-][+]PEP 594 Removing dead batteries from stdlib[/+][-]PEP 594[/-][+]PEP 594 Removing dead batteries from stdlib[/+]arhadthedev commentedon May 12, 2023
Repurposing this issue for 3.13.
hugovk commentedon May 21, 2023
I've made a start on removing the more straightforward ones in a branch.
Would it be better with all in one PR, as one PR per module, or somewhere in the middle with smaller batches?
arhadthedev commentedon May 21, 2023
I would vote for the one PR per module option. It allows reviewers to not get lost with each removed module having:
_Py*functions added exclusively for the module and used nowhere else.arhadthedev commentedon May 23, 2023
Closing in favor of gh-104773.
CAM-Gerlach commentedon May 23, 2023
Re-closing with the correct close state.