Add compatibility for keywords #420
Conversation
|
Are there keywords aside from |
|
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 |
|
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) |
|
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 |
|
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:
***@***.***>
|
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?