Add compatibility for keywords

[phofl]

I don't have a good idea what we could do here. Renaming keywords makes testing with the dask test suite a PITA, but I also don't want to introduce too much debt.

We might want to consider a deprecation period in dask/dask instead so that we can switch over fresh to dask-expr when we enable dask-expr by default?

[mrocklin]

Are there keywords aside from shuffle= that this protects against? Why is there a mismatch between dask/dask and dask-expr in this case?

[phofl]

Only shuffle for now,

Some keywords were renamed when re-implementing stuff in dask-expr, most of them happened before my involvement, so not sure about the reasoning (that said I generally in favour of cleaning up names), cc @rjzamora

[mrocklin]

My recommendation would be to just align dask-expr to dask/dask for these cases for now and use the names that we don't like, making a note of what we want to change. Then when we flip the switch we make a bunch of changes back to the names that we like. (better to do one big change than two medium changes)

[phofl]

I would prefer adding the names we like to dask/dask now and raise a deprecation warning for the already existing names, these changes are trivial for users

[mrocklin]

Ok

…

On Wed, Nov 22, 2023, 9:48 AM Patrick Hoefler ***@***.***> wrote: I would prefer adding the names we like to dask/dask now and raise a deprecation warning for the already existing names, these changes are trivial for users — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#420 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AACKZTEQKWVAZXQLSC2GWU3YFYNELAVCNFSM6AAAAAA7WM45MCVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMYTQMRTGAZDEMZSG4> . You are receiving this because your review was requested.Message ID: ***@***.***>