DOC: try to be nicer about f2py.compile #25194
Conversation
4006213 to
75a3eb8
Compare
75a3eb8 to
db987d6
Compare
|
@melissawm thoughts? |
| "Write a custom subprocess.run wrapper to f2py instead", | ||
| VisibleDeprecationWarning, | ||
| stacklevel=2, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Maybe we want to include an example of this in the f2py docs.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
+1 yup, though I think that'd be better suited to #25193.
I was wondering about the off-chance that it is being used and the downstream users would like some time to migrate away from it (though they really should so we can't keep it around forever). @seberg mentioned the release of 2.0 would be sometime early next year so there's still some time for people who update their versions regularly to get ahead of any issues they'd have. |
|
Well, we want to branch in a month and a bit I think, if everything goes well. And users of this - of which there will be few - are not likely to going to need it from a dev version. We have a lot of stuff to get in for 2.0, so if this is ready to go we should put it in. |
|
Okay, this is approved, so I'll hit the green button. Let's not leave anything to right before the branch cut though. |
|
Thank Rohit & reviewers! |
The nicer version of #25193. Perhaps to be merged now and that can go in later.