Hi Stuart, On Mon, Aug 04, 2014 at 11:37:06PM +1000, Stuart Prescott wrote: > Hi John, > > thanks for your feedback on this patch series too. I've dealt with all your > comments except the two below and updated the git repo accordingly.
Thanks. Looks good to me. > > As above, I don't quite understand the point of this. What action would > > we reasonably take if apt_pkg changed its behavior to be more > > permissive? > > > I share your concern with these bits of code. I actually started by testing > that TagFile was *correctly* parsing the file with comments when I was > investigating this issue and I guess to an extent the tests were then > adjusted > to reflect reality. I figured leaving them in was useful mostly as a counter- > example of how *not* to use iter_paragraphs and what will happen if you do. > The test does ensure that the remaining paragraphs are identified correctly > and > perhaps that is useful information in itself. Were TagFile to change (highly > unlikely I'd say), then we would be able to switch the default implementation > back to it. > > I don't know whether this really makes sense to do or not. I don't have a strong opinion. It doesn't hurt for us to know when/if TagFile's behavior changes. -- John Wright <[email protected]> -- http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-python-debian-maint
