-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 7.9k
Decorator for deleting a parameter with a deprecation period. #13173
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Conversation
I understand your motivation to go on top of another open PR. However, that makes review more difficult. I'm waiting with the review until #13128 is in. Semi-OT: I've the feeling that PRs pile up. The number is up again to close to 300 (we got it down to 250 some time ago). Also, there are a number of "ready" PRs: 17 open ones with "needs review" and 53 open ones with at least one approval. I assume many of them could go without further modification, they just need the formal reviews. However, no idea how we get the reviews up. 🙁 |
No hurries. I'd like to propose a new merge rule to move in uncontroversial PRs faster, something like
To be discussed... |
a17ff6c
to
e90d264
Compare
e90d264
to
cb770b8
Compare
cb770b8
to
07229f8
Compare
rebased |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I don't fully parse the functools magic, but this seems to do what is said.
Anyone can merge after rebase and passing tests.... |
As an example application, deprecate the unused shape and imlim args to imshow() (unused since around 4d1107c (2006)).
rebased |
07229f8
to
c62f491
Compare
PR Summary
As an example application, deprecate the unused shape and imlim args to
imshow() (unused since around 4d1107c (2006)).
Goes on top of #13128 to avoid a rebase. [edit: it has been merged]
PR Checklist