If you saw another instance, then yes, I think you should correct that one, too.

The most recent commit ensures this rule is followed consistently across the file.

There are other issues I found. For example, the maximum line length of 80 stipulated in the devguide is not adhered to throughout the file. But I haven't seen this rule consistently enforced. My aim was to keep the diff to a minimum.

Can we please not start encouraging PRs like this? IMO this is churn and nothing else. Can we please just close this PR, @ericvsmith? (Sorry if I'm coming out harsh.)

Generally speaking, I wouldn't bother going through fixing more: we usually aim to avoid churn, this doesn't make any difference to end users, and the devguide says to use one or two.

A sentence-ending period may be followed by one or two spaces; while reST ignores the second space, it is customarily put in by some users, for example to aid Emacs’ auto-fill mode.

(For the record, I'm not criticising you for anything, @OTheDev)

@OTheDev:

My aim was to keep the diff to a minimum.

BTW, that is a very good rule to follow for future PRs, both for code and documentation.

@erlend-aasland In general, I agree that this is mostly a waste of time, but this was specifically requested by a senior core dev in another issue.

@rhettinger, please do not merge PRs marked with DO-NOT-MERGE. Merging such PRs is an encouragement for churn in itself.

[…] this was specifically requested by a senior core dev in another issue.

That request was specifically countered by three other core devs. Not exactly what I'd call consensus.

I requested the original change because the PR I was responding to removed a second space, which made the style inconsistent within that file. I don't think it's a problem to restore the recently made inconsistent change, and I also don't think it's a big deal to change the other few places that file was inconsistent.

Let’s just not encourage such PRs in the future. They really don’t add any value to the code base, they introduce noise in the commit history, and waste resources.

Also note the prominent heading in PEP 8, https://peps.python.org/pep-0008/#a-foolish-consistency-is-the-hobgoblin-of-little-minds.

Also, this now has to be backported, in order to minimise conflicts with future backports, thus creating even more churn.

Thanks @OTheDev for the PR, and @rhettinger for merging it 🌮🎉.. I'm working now to backport this PR to: 3.10.
🐍🍒⛏🤖

Thanks @OTheDev for the PR, and @rhettinger for merging it 🌮🎉.. I'm working now to backport this PR to: 3.11.
🐍🍒⛏🤖

GH-102154 is a backport of this pull request to the 3.10 branch.

GH-102155 is a backport of this pull request to the 3.11 branch.