Doc: os.path.abspath and Path.resolve are also different

[xuhdev]

Add more explanation to point out that os.path.abspath and Path.resolve
are also not equivalent.

[JulienPalard]

Hi @xuhdev and thanks for the PR!

Can you extrapolate on their differences?

I bet at this point specific comments should be added for each diverging pair of functions, so a developer converting from sys.path to pathlib could know what to expect.

[xuhdev]

@JulienPalard I agree, added

[Mariatta]

There's a doctest failing in the build. Would you be able to look into it?

[xuhdev]

@Mariatta Thanks for the reminder. The doctest has been fixed now.

[JulienPalard]

That's better with the explanations, and I learnt something.

I'm not fan of the 187 character wide table though. An idea: you could use footnotes for this? Like:

====================================   ==============================
:mod:`os` and :mod:`os.path`           :mod:`pathlib`
====================================   ==============================
:func:`os.path.abspath`                :meth:`Path.resolve` [#]_

followed by :

.. rubric:: Footnotes

.. [#] :func:`os.path.abspath` does not resolve symbolic links while :meth:`Path.resolve` does.

An exmple of footnotes can be found in reference/expressions.rst.

[xuhdev]

@JulienPalard Thanks, I have updated the PR to use footnotes.

[JulienPalard]

@Mariatta Some required tests are skipped, if I understand correctly that's why it says checks are not successful?

[Mariatta]

Somehow the Travis I build is in "Cancelled" status. Perhaps we need to restart it.

[xuhdev]

@Mariatta @JulienPalard I rebase the PR so all tests have now been retriggered.

[Mariatta]

We're aware of the issue with bedevere skip-issues/news status https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-committers@python.org/message/4QD47S5OB4EVC6A2QTT7EH26EQBW4PGR/

[xuhdev]

Can we proceed with this PR? It's been 3 weeks since last activity.

[JulienPalard]

@xuhdev thanks for the PR :)

[xuhdev]

And thanks for all the feed back :)