From f26a1a3e16c8fc96e1d2791b228ad6a941d63c16 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Matthias Bussonnier <bussonniermatthias@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 12 May 2019 17:25:08 -0700
Subject: [PATCH] bpo-36896: Clarify that some types constructors are unstable

At least it will represent the current state, which seem to be a
consensus; but is not explicit.
---
 Doc/library/types.rst                                          | 3 +++
 .../Documentation/2019-05-31-10-46-36.bpo-36896.wkXTW9.rst     | 2 ++
 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 Misc/NEWS.d/next/Documentation/2019-05-31-10-46-36.bpo-36896.wkXTW9.rst

diff --git a/Doc/library/types.rst b/Doc/library/types.rst
index 07c3a2e7f68276d..04195e112bdc967 100644
--- a/Doc/library/types.rst
+++ b/Doc/library/types.rst
@@ -98,6 +98,9 @@ the types that arise only incidentally during processing such as the
 Typical use of these names is for :func:`isinstance` or
 :func:`issubclass` checks.
 
+
+If you instantiate any of these types, note that signatures may vary between Python versions.
+
 Standard names are defined for the following types:
 
 .. data:: FunctionType
diff --git a/Misc/NEWS.d/next/Documentation/2019-05-31-10-46-36.bpo-36896.wkXTW9.rst b/Misc/NEWS.d/next/Documentation/2019-05-31-10-46-36.bpo-36896.wkXTW9.rst
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000000..d75fccad6c0ff1a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Misc/NEWS.d/next/Documentation/2019-05-31-10-46-36.bpo-36896.wkXTW9.rst
@@ -0,0 +1,2 @@
+Clarify that some types have unstable constructor signature between Python
+versions.