Sorry, I am new to this repo, how can I assign "skip news" label?

Sorry, I am new to this repo, how can I assign "skip news" label?

AFAIK, someone has to do that for you.

This PR is stale because it has been open for 30 days with no activity. Remove stale label or comment or this will be closed in 5 days

This PR is stale because it has been open for 30 days with no activity. Remove stale label or comment or this will be closed in 5 days

No, it's not!

I am the author. Is anything else required from me? Any concerns?

Anybody? @berkerpeksag, it shows you as code owner... Is there anything that needs to be fixed?

@willingc please help.

@greatvovan I've been offline for a few weeks. I'll add this to my queue for review. Thanks for your patience.

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.

Thanks @berkerpeksag, I reverted to mentioning configure script and added the link you provided. I insist that the original sentence is bad as it gives no hints to the topic 90% of Python developers will not ever touch.

Please also note that the main issue here is removing a paragraph that is inconsistent with other article sections (see BPO), it is not a "random formatting change".

I think it worths to mention that Python must be rebuilt (recompiled) as just running the script will do nothing.

Let me try again. You are trying to make two separate changes in a single PR:

1. Removing an outdated section in the documentation. This is completely fine and I'd be happy to merge such PR.
2. Making random formatting and wording changes on a completely unrelated sentence explaining something you don't fully understand. This is not okay for the following reasons:
   • We prefer doing one change (this can be a new feature, bug fix, documentation changes) per BPO issue. bpo-38413 is about removing an outdated section in the sqlite3 documentation. You cannot include another change. It's a bad practice. If you found something else while working on bpo-38413, the best practice is to open a new BPO issue or submit a PR (for example, if you found a typo, you can just submit a separate PR without creating an issue)
   • The change you are trying to insist on including is incorrect and the old sentence hasn't been caused any confusion for the past decade. So I'm not going to change it just because someone who initially proposed replacing configure with pyenv's PYTHON_CONFIGURE_OPTS said so.
   • It's okay to not know about a very niche feature. We all learn something new all the time. However, it's not okay to keep pushing for it when someone else said "no your change is incorrect, please revert to the old version."

Thanks @greatvovan for the PR, and @berkerpeksag for merging it 🌮🎉.. I'm working now to backport this PR to: 3.8, 3.9.
🐍🍒⛏🤖

Sorry @greatvovan and @berkerpeksag, I had trouble checking out the 3.9 backport branch.
Please backport using cherry_picker on command line.
cherry_picker f9949f82e17c88609adb53eff3a7d5cd63a645bd 3.9

GH-24134 is a backport of this pull request to the 3.8 branch.

@greatvovan do you have time to submit a backport PR for 3.9? I can help you if you don't want to use cherry_picker.

• I admitted that I was incorrect in my initial change. With your help it was fixed, this is why we have review process of pull requests. I am still not getting what is wrong with the second version and why you are still saying I don't understand something two times in one post.
• I got your point about creating a separate BPO/PR for other unrelated issues and am actually agree that this is better, but in this case I believe it's easier to just inform your counterpart about best practices for the future and proceed. Due to such kind of bureaucracy you have 1.5K of open pull requests.
• You have no data to state that "the old sentence hasn't been caused any confusion for the past decade". Not everyone who finds a confusing phrase runs submitting a change. Questions about enabling sqlite extensions can be found on StackOverflow and in other places, so it is indeed calls confusion.
• I reverted the original sentence. You just left the Python documentation with this ugly phrase:

you must pass --enable-loadable-sqlite-extensions to configure

My congratulations.

do you have time to submit a backport PR for 3.9?

Yes, I do have time, but your help is appreciated (links, recommendations). Isn't it just a PR to another branch with the same change?

Isn't it just a PR to another branch with the same change?

Yes, you basically do:

$ git checkout -b backport-to-3.9 3.9
$ git cherry-pick -x f9949f82e17c88609adb53eff3a7d5cd63a645bd 

And add [3.9] prefix to PR title when submitting it. You can copy and paste the title of GH-24134 and replace 3.8 with 3.9.

GH-24145 is a backport of this pull request to the 3.9 branch.

@berkerpeksag #24145

Edit: oh, the bot is faster than me...