Skip to content

bpo-9004: Recommend against using utctimetuple in the docs. #10870

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

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

abalkin
Copy link
Member

@abalkin abalkin commented Dec 3, 2018

Closes bpo-9004.

Original patch by Gaurav Tatke.

https://bugs.python.org/issue9004

Closes issue 9004.

Original patch by Gaurav Tatke.
@bedevere-bot bedevere-bot added docs Documentation in the Doc dir awaiting merge labels Dec 3, 2018
@nanjekyejoannah
Copy link
Contributor

nanjekyejoannah commented Mar 11, 2019

@abalkin please add a news entry.

You can use https://blurb-it.herokuapp.com/ to do this.

@@ -742,6 +742,8 @@ Other constructors, all class methods:
If *tz* is not ``None``, it must be an instance of a :class:`tzinfo` subclass, and the
current date and time are converted to *tz*’s time zone. In this case the
result is equivalent to ``tz.fromutc(datetime.utcnow().replace(tzinfo=tz))``.
It is recommended to create aware datetime object for current UTC time by
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Am not a native english speaker but shouldn't this "It is recommended to create aware datetime object " be "It is recommended to create an aware datetime object for current" or "be "It is recommended to create aware datetime objects for current"

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Am not a native english speaker neither but I'd propose:

The recommended way to create aware datetime object for the current time in UTC is ...

@csabella
Copy link
Contributor

csabella commented Jun 5, 2019

cc @pganssle

@pganssle pganssle self-requested a review June 16, 2019 14:37
@JulienPalard
Copy link
Member

@abalkin there's now a conflict on your PR, would you please rebase it on top of master?

@pganssle does this looks good to you? Have you a preferred wording?

@pganssle
Copy link
Member

I think maybe we should consolidate this into #15773.

@nanjekyejoannah Do you mind adding a similar warning box to .utctimetuple()? I don't think I even realized that this function exists 😞

@pganssle
Copy link
Member

Closed in favor of #15773

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
awaiting merge docs Documentation in the Doc dir skip news
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

7 participants