gh-139434: Update selected RFC 2822 references to RFC 5322 #139435
Conversation
filiplajszczak
requested review from
a team,
abalkin and
pganssle
as code owners
RFC 2822 was obsoleted by RFC 5322 in 2008. This updates references to use the current standard in documentation, docstrings, and comments. It preserves RFC 2822 references in legacy API components to maintain their historical context. RFC 822 → RFC 2822 → RFC 5322 progression is explained where relevant. In some places specific sections of RFC are referenced where it seems helpful. Scout rule was applied in some places and RFC mentions format was normalized in doc strings and comments.
filiplajszczak
force-pushed
the
rfc5322
branch
from
4b640d8 to
74ad2a0
Compare
bitdancer
added
needs backport to 3.13
|
Thanks @filiplajszczak for the PR, and @bitdancer for merging it 🌮🎉.. I'm working now to backport this PR to: 3.13. |
|
Thanks @filiplajszczak for the PR, and @bitdancer for merging it 🌮🎉.. I'm working now to backport this PR to: 3.14. |
|
Sorry, @filiplajszczak and @bitdancer, I could not cleanly backport this to |
|
Sorry, @filiplajszczak and @bitdancer, I could not cleanly backport this to |
|
Hmm. Not sure if it is worth doing the backport since the cherry pick isn't clean. Do you want to tackle that? If not I'll just remove the backport labels and close the backport PRs, which is my inclination. |
|
@bitdancer conflict resolution was straight forward. I've already done it. See https://github.com/filiplajszczak/cpython/tree/backport-ce1bb85-3.13 and https://github.com/filiplajszczak/cpython/tree/backport-ce1bb85-3.14 Should I create separate PRs? I do not have any experience with backports. |
…22 (pythonGH-139435) Update selected RFC 2822 references to RFC 5322 RFC 2822 was obsoleted by RFC 5322 in 2008. This updates references to use the current standard in documentation, docstrings, and comments. It preserves RFC 2822 references in legacy API components to maintain their historical context. RFC 822 → RFC 2822 → RFC 5322 progression is explained where relevant. In some places specific sections of RFC are referenced where it seems helpful. Scout rule was applied in some places and RFC mentions format was normalized in doc strings and comments. (cherry picked from commit ce1bb85) Co-authored-by: Filip Łajszczak <[email protected]>
|
There's cherry_picker script and process described in the devguide. It basically does what the bot does, except you get to fix the conflicts in the middle. |
|
GH-141024 is a backport of this pull request to the 3.13 branch. |
|
GH-141025 is a backport of this pull request to the 3.14 branch. |
|
@bitdancer I see what happened. Script got confused by my remote naming, but it looks like it did important part correctly by setting correctly named branches and commit messages, so I just had to trigger the PRs. I'm not sure, though. |
|
I think manually triggering the PR creation is a required step, but I've only done it once so far myself ;) |
…-139435) (#141024) Update selected RFC 2822 references to RFC 5322 RFC 2822 was obsoleted by RFC 5322 in 2008. This updates references to use the current standard in documentation, docstrings, and comments. It preserves RFC 2822 references in legacy API components to maintain their historical context. RFC 822 → RFC 2822 → RFC 5322 progression is explained where relevant. In some places specific sections of RFC are referenced where it seems helpful. Scout rule was applied in some places and RFC mentions format was normalized in doc strings and comments. (cherry picked from commit ce1bb85)
…-139435) (#141025) Update selected RFC 2822 references to RFC 5322 RFC 2822 was obsoleted by RFC 5322 in 2008. This updates references to use the current standard in documentation, docstrings, and comments. It preserves RFC 2822 references in legacy API components to maintain their historical context. RFC 822 → RFC 2822 → RFC 5322 progression is explained where relevant. In some places specific sections of RFC are referenced where it seems helpful. Scout rule was applied in some places and RFC mentions format was normalized in doc strings and comments. (cherry picked from commit ce1bb85)
3 participants
RFC 2822 was obsoleted by RFC 5322 in 2008. This updates references to use the current standard in documentation, docstrings, and comments.
It preserves RFC 2822 references in legacy API components to maintain their historical context.
RFC 822 → RFC 2822 → RFC 5322 progression is explained where relevant.
In some places specific sections of RFC are referenced where it seems helpful.
📚 Documentation preview 📚: https://cpython-previews--139435.org.readthedocs.build/