GeezerVison

I can add an entry into NEWS but I wonder if it's really useful.
What do you think about it?

cc @csabella @pganssle

The whole 'Quick Start' section use 'we', I wonder if the section should be rewritten to remove them. If it's the case, perhaps another bug report+PR is a better choice?

@sblondon Yes, it should probably be in a separate PR and issue, since it''s involving a different section. Preferably, it would be done multiple PRs (single issue), instead of all at once. Smaller PRs tend to be significantly easier to review.

However, I think this issue should be marked as "newcomer friendly" (reserved mostly for first time contributors), I think it would serve as a great introduction into contributing to Python. We'll have to see what the core devs think.

@sblondon Thanks for making the changes to the phrasing.

I removed the 3 spaces before each line because the paragraph should not be indented.

The three space indentation before each line is a requirement for reST, so any .rst file must do so. See the devguide for more information.

Thanks for the link @aeros167 . However, I don't understand the sentence All reST files use an indentation of 3 spaces; no tabs are allowed. like you.
To me, it means 'if indentation is needed, use 3 spaces', not 'every line must be indented by 3 spaces'.

I think that because every .rst file I watch does not have 3 spaces indentations for the main text. Examples in cpython documentation:

• https://raw.githubusercontent.com/python/cpython/master/Doc/about.rst
• https://raw.githubusercontent.com/python/cpython/master/Doc/library/math.rst

Example in the devguide:

• https://raw.githubusercontent.com/python/devguide/master/documenting.rst

What do you think about it?

Thanks for the link @aeros167 . However, I don't understand the sentence All reST files use an indentation of 3 spaces; no tabs are allowed. like you.
To me, it means 'if indentation is needed, use 3 spaces', not 'every line must be indented by 3 spaces'.

@sblondon Upon further inspection of the area being modified, you're correct. For some reason, I had thought that this area was surrounded by an reST directive (which causes all lines to require the 3 space indent I was referring to). It looks like there's only the initial code-block for the ini config and then doctest for the interpreter, with no directive surrounding that paragraph I suggested the changes to.

Thanks again for the PR and responsiveness to the feedback. Apologies if I caused any confusion, I'll edit my comments accordingly.

Note: I think this mistake was partially a result of me attempting to increase the volume of my PR reviews (since that's a main bottleneck for CPython). In the future, I need to make sure that I more thoroughly inspect the full section surrounding the changes, instead of looking at the diff.

@aeros167 Thank you for the review ! :)

(By the way, beware of burn out if you try to do too much volonteer work.)

Thank you for the review ! :)
(By the way, beware of burn out if you try to do too much volonteer work.)

No problem, and yeah I definitely need to make sure that I pace myself. This is the first open source project that I've found myself incredibly motivated to help with, since Python was my first serious programming language 5+ years ago.

It can be tempting some days to just endlessly sink my free time into it, but burnout is definitely a concern. @vstinner mentioned this in a talk earlier this year at PyCon 2019.

A Python core developer has requested some changes be made to your pull request before we can consider merging it. If you could please address their requests along with any other requests in other reviews from core developers that would be appreciated.

Once you have made the requested changes, please leave a comment on this pull request containing the phrase I have made the requested changes; please review again. I will then notify any core developers who have left a review that you're ready for them to take another look at this pull request.

Added a skip news label since this is a documentation change, but you can optionally add one if you'd like to @sblondon. Thanks again for the PR. (:

I don't think a news entry is necessary so it's good to me.

@csabella I merged a version accepted by @pganssle (see the thread #15177 (review)). @ambv never replied.
What can I do to help the merge occurs?

Closing and re-opening to re-trigger CI checks which were spuriously failing before.

Looks like the failure is real: the documentation doctest fails with:

File "library/configparser.rst", line 246, in default
Failed example:
    topsecret.getboolean('BatchMode', fallback=True)
Expected:
    False
Got:
    True

...

 Makefile:127: recipe for target 'doctest' failed
make: *** [doctest] Error 1
make: Leaving directory '/home/runner/work/cpython/cpython/Doc'

@sblondon, please confirm you can successfully build the documentation locally by running this in the main directory of your cpython checkout:

make -C Doc/ PYTHON=../python doctest suspicious html

@ambv I renamed the config object created by the patch so now the first instance is not overwritten and the failing test uses it like when the patch wasn't there. Is this workaround enough?

I checked the fix on my computer with:

>>> import doctest
>>> doctest.testfile("Doc/library/configparser.rst")
TestResults(failed=0, attempted=88)

Thanks everyone!