Skip to content

[3.0] Removed 2.x versionadded directives #4766

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

wouterj
Copy link
Member

@wouterj wouterj commented Jan 4, 2015

No description provided.

@wouterj wouterj force-pushed the remove_versionadded branch from 77de342 to 50bf9a4 Compare January 5, 2015 10:30
@wouterj
Copy link
Member Author

wouterj commented Jan 5, 2015

To explain: I think we should start with a clean docs in 3.0, only adding changes of 3.0.

@javiereguiluz
Copy link
Member

@wouterj I agree 100% with you! This is a great idea!

@stof
Copy link
Member

stof commented Jan 5, 2015

👍

@xabbuh
Copy link
Member

xabbuh commented Jan 5, 2015

👍 We just need to be aware do this again when new features are documented on the 2.x branches (we have pending pull requests for 2.6 and there will very likely new features in 2.7).

@fabpot
Copy link
Member

fabpot commented Jan 5, 2015

This is indeed a good idea, but I think that everytime we remove a versionadded directive, we also should remove the old way. If you merge this PR as is, it will be much more difficult to this afterwards.

If you take for instance the reference/twig_reference.rst file, you removed the following directive:

.. versionadded:: 2.6
     The ``app.security`` global is deprecated as of 2.6. The user is already available
     as ``app.user`` and ``is_granted()`` is registered as function.

It's very clear that all references to app.security must be removed from the docs or replaced by the better alternatives. But without this directives, it's much harder to know what is obsolete and what is not. In this specific case, it's quite simple as it's about removing the docs for app.security, but it can be more subtle elsewhere.

@wouterj
Copy link
Member Author

wouterj commented Jan 5, 2015

That a great point I didn't think about. If I'm correct, we have always removed old behaviour, but I'll check it again and open other PRs to fix them. Until that's done, I label this as on hold.

@xabbuh
Copy link
Member

xabbuh commented Jan 5, 2015

@wouterj Yes, usually we did. Last weekend I checked the pull request on the code repository that removed deprecated features in the 3.0 branch and we already covered most of them. There were only a few things left and we now have pull requests for them.

@wouterj
Copy link
Member Author

wouterj commented Jul 31, 2015

Closing in favor of #5585

@wouterj wouterj closed this Jul 31, 2015
@wouterj wouterj deleted the remove_versionadded branch July 31, 2015 18:27
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants