Skip to content

DOC: Move API breaking to appropriate sections #34865

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

Conversation

TomAugspurger
Copy link
Contributor

As discussed in #34801, this moves some items from our "API breaking changes" section to either bug fixes or enhancements. I've only moved the ones we can hopefully get consensus on as bug fix / enhancement. But let me know if any of these need further discussion on whether they're an API breaking change.

@TomAugspurger TomAugspurger added this to the 1.1 milestone Jun 18, 2020
Copy link
Contributor

@jreback jreback left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

unless i am missing something a fair amount was deleted here

@@ -623,57 +532,14 @@ The method :meth:`core.DataFrameGroupBy.size` would previously ignore ``as_index

df.groupby("a", as_index=False).size()

.. _whatsnew_110.api_breaking.apply_applymap_first_once:
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

where did this one go?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@@ -524,39 +466,6 @@ those integer keys is not present in the first level of the index (:issue:`33539

left_df.merge(right_df, on=['animal', 'max_speed'], how="right")

.. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

where did this go?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@@ -336,68 +340,6 @@ Other enhancements
Backwards incompatible API changes
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

``MultiIndex.get_indexer`` interprets `method` argument differently
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

where did this go?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I would rather not move this, this example is very needed to understand what the heck that change was.

I have no problem with you moving things around, but let's leave the examples. If you want to remove them, then let's discuss individually.

@TomAugspurger
Copy link
Contributor Author

Copy link
Contributor Author

@TomAugspurger TomAugspurger left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Would be nice to get this in before more merge conflicts come up.

@@ -524,39 +466,6 @@ those integer keys is not present in the first level of the index (:issue:`33539

left_df.merge(right_df, on=['animal', 'max_speed'], how="right")

.. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@@ -623,57 +532,14 @@ The method :meth:`core.DataFrameGroupBy.size` would previously ignore ``as_index

df.groupby("a", as_index=False).size()

.. _whatsnew_110.api_breaking.apply_applymap_first_once:
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@TomAugspurger
Copy link
Contributor Author

Also cc @jorisvandenbossche for confirmation that this all look like bug fixes.

Copy link
Contributor

@jreback jreback left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

see my comments. let's move things around, leaving the examples. and potentially change / remove them later (as to be honest I am not sure why you are deleting them in the first place).

@@ -336,68 +340,6 @@ Other enhancements
Backwards incompatible API changes
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

``MultiIndex.get_indexer`` interprets `method` argument differently
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I would rather not move this, this example is very needed to understand what the heck that change was.

I have no problem with you moving things around, but let's leave the examples. If you want to remove them, then let's discuss individually.

@TomAugspurger
Copy link
Contributor Author

I need to close this for a while.

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.

2 participants