Author ned.deily
Recipients Mark.Shannon, benjamin.peterson, flherne, georg.brandl, inada.naoki, lukasz.langa, ned.deily, rhettinger, serhiy.storchaka, vstinner
Date 2018-05-25.04:42:20
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <>
Based on more recent discussions and indirect feedback from downstream users (primarily the recent IPython experience), I am reluctantly re-opening this issue for 3.7.0.  I take responsibility for encouraging us earlier in the beta phase to continue with the feature as it stood, thereby prioritizing schedule over any technical issues.  Although it is now very late in the 3.7.0 cycle, with the newly expressed concerns my opinion has changed: I think we owe it to our downstream users to think about this one more time.

I agree with Benjamin's remark that it is very late in the 3.7 cycle to be considering new or revised APIs for 3.7.0.  So it seems to me we have only two practical alternatives at this point:

A. Proceed with 3.7.0rc1 as planned with the docstrings feature as it now stands and consider API changes for 3.8.


B. Revert the feature now for 3.7.0, retargeting for 3.8, and produce a 3.7.0b5 on a somewhat shorter cycle to allow downstream users to adapt to the removal.

I don't know how controversial making this decision will be but I think we need to move quickly as this is now *the* blocker for 3.7.0.  Coming now at the start of a weekend, in some countries a 3-day holiday weekend, I do want to make sure that the major stakeholders involved with this issue get a chance to "vote", although ultimately it will be up to the release manager (me) to make the final decision.  So, to be clear, we will not be deciding here and now what the API should be if we were to retarget for 3.8; please save that discussion for later.  The only question open right now is a vote for either option A (proceed as is) or option B (revert for 3.7 and retarget).  Let's set a limit for "voting" until Tuesday 2018-05-29 18:00 UTC (to cover the holiday weekend) with the proviso that if a clear consensus one way or the other appears before that we may cut the period short and proceed to implemention.

I know this is not a pleasant task especially at this late date.  I apologize to everyone, especially to Inada-san, for dragging this out.  I certainly appreciate the hard work that has gone into this feature so far and look forward to seeing it in either 3.7 or 3.8.
Date User Action Args
2018-05-25 04:42:21ned.deilysetrecipients: + ned.deily, georg.brandl, rhettinger, vstinner, benjamin.peterson, inada.naoki, lukasz.langa, Mark.Shannon, serhiy.storchaka, flherne
2018-05-25 04:42:21ned.deilysetmessageid: <>
2018-05-25 04:42:21ned.deilylinkissue32911 messages
2018-05-25 04:42:20ned.deilycreate