The docs for the copy module contain a bullet that says the following:

"Because deep copy copies everything it may copy too much, e.g., even administrative data structures that should be shared even between copies."

There should be a "not" between "should" and "be shared." I think the second "even" can be dropped, too.

That line is correct, the point is that deep copy will duplicate even the things that you may *want* to be shared.

See also #27416.  I'm not sure what we can do to further clarify that line, but it is certainly easy to misread.

How about

```
Because deep copy copies everything, it may copy too much, including the administrative data structures.
```

?

What about "administrative data structures" that should be copied?

I think that "administrative data structures" is a red herring: there could be data that needs copying, and data that needs sharing and shouldn't be copied, independent of what the data is used for.

"Because deepcopy copies everything it may copy too much, such as data which is intended to be shared between copies."

+1 for the Steven's suggestion

"Because deepcopy copies everything it may copy too much, such as data which is intended to be shared (instead of duplicated) between copies."

A bit more explicit?

I prefer Steven's formulation.  The parenthetical is more distracting than clarifying, I think.  I agree that 'administrative' is confusing and unnecessary.

Current documentation looks correct to me. What is the problem with it?

Steven's formulation says about "deepcopy", but current documentation says about common issues of "deep copy" and describes how copy.deepcopy() solves them.

Serhiy is right about "deep copy" instead of "deepcopy", but IMO the Steven's proposal (with the "deep copy" correction) is much clearer than the current doc.

Looking over the PR, and especially in the context of Serhiy's point about this being about 'deep copy' and not 'deepcopy', I think this would be clearer if it were shortened even further, to just:

"Because deep copy copies everything, it may copy data that is intended to be shared between copies."

After all, what deepcopy does it provide a way for a class to implement that sharing when a deepcopy is done.

Assigning to myself since Sanyam submitted the related PR at the PyCon Pune sprints.

I'm going to merge Sanyam's PR as-is, as while David's reformulation shorten the overall sentence, it complicates the core description of the problem (copying things that you didn't want copied) by merging it with the stereotypical example of why you might not want to copy something (i.e. you intended to share a common reference between otherwise independent copies).

New changeset 19e04942562a980ad2519f6ff79c455a7472783b by Nick Coghlan (Sanyam Khurana) in branch 'master':
bpo-29506: Clarify deep copy note in copy module
https://github.com/python/cpython/commit/19e04942562a980ad2519f6ff79c455a7472783b

New changeset a524d6307273e3920d410452ace89610c843f051 by Nick Coghlan in branch '3.6':
bpo-29506: Clarify deep copy note in copy module
https://github.com/python/cpython/commit/a524d6307273e3920d410452ace89610c843f051

New changeset bd18351c31573ab9a8580677004370a774a4eaae by Nick Coghlan in branch '3.5':
bpo-29506: Clarify deep copy note in copy module
https://github.com/python/cpython/commit/bd18351c31573ab9a8580677004370a774a4eaae

New changeset ab16dc180e362e4cdb9eb163fae0a75664dcea3e by Nick Coghlan in branch '2.7':
bpo-29506: Clarify deep copy note in copy module
https://github.com/python/cpython/commit/ab16dc180e362e4cdb9eb163fae0a75664dcea3e