gh-149857: Clarify multiprocessing Process argument wording#149919
Conversation
Documentation build overview
|
|
Small wording consistency note: elsewhere in Would it be better to use “picklable” here too, so this sentence matches the surrounding multiprocessing docs? |
|
@savagemechanic Thanks for catching that. I’ve updated the wording to use “picklable” for consistency with the surrounding docs. |
gpshead
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
"unpicklable from within the child process" was technically correct but implied picklable. I like this wording better regardless, the point about unpickle needs to work is the second sentence anyways.
|
Thanks @ManiSalahmand for the PR, and @gpshead for merging it 🌮🎉.. I'm working now to backport this PR to: 3.13, 3.14, 3.15. |
|
GH-149933 is a backport of this pull request to the 3.15 branch. |
|
GH-149934 is a backport of this pull request to the 3.14 branch. |
|
GH-149935 is a backport of this pull request to the 3.13 branch. |
…thonGH-149919) Use consistent 'picklable' wording
The previous wording used "unpickleable from within the child process",
which was confusing. This change clarifies that Process arguments usually
need to be pickleable so they can be passed to the child process.
Processneed to be unpickleable from within the child process #149857