On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 10:49:04PM +0000, Finucane, Stephen wrote: > > (... and I see it was merged already. Cool.) > > I had reviewed (and have also been using) the patches 1[1] and 3[2] in > the series since the first time they were sent. Had the same trivial > comment about the second one but I let it slip - it's a good fix and > I'm eager to get this kind of stuff in and backlog cleared out.
Glad you're clearing the backlog! > > Looks good to me, though I'm still a little green on Python 2/3 > > compatibility. I've been runnning this (plus other patches) since you > > What are your thoughts on the use of 'six' for this stuff? Would it help you > here? I'm not very familiar, but before reading this email I was trying to figure out the "best" interoperable way to replace dict.iteritems(), and I see we could use six.iteritems(). So my initial review says "sure"! Except then, we rely on PyPy and nonstandard libraries which doesn't seem too good to me for such a small utility :( Brian _______________________________________________ Patchwork mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/patchwork
