On Thu, Sep 09, 2010 at 05:53:59PM +0200, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote: > On Thu, Sep 09, 2010 at 03:54:56PM +0100, Neil McGovern wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 09, 2010 at 11:25:30AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote: > > > >Sometimes 2to3 will find a place in your source code that needs to be > > > >changed, but 2to3 cannot fix automatically. In this case, 2to3 will > > > >print a warning beneath the diff for a file. You should address the > > > >warning in order to have compliant 3.x code. > > > > > > so what? 2to3 will never be a tool which results should be used without > > > inspection. > > > > > > > So if a patch comes out that fixes a security bug in foo.py(2), that is > > incompatable with 2to3, then it needs fixing twice. Which is why I've > > asked the secruity team for input. > > I don't think that's a problem we need to be concerned about. >
Cool, thanks Moritz. It's just the API stability which is left then. Hopefully Matthias has some more info on this, or we could just have a big fat warning somewhere that tells people not to rely on it. Neil -- A. Because it breaks the logical sequence of discussion Q. Why is top posting bad? gpg key - http://www.halon.org.uk/pubkey.txt ; the.earth.li A40F862E -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
