Steve Dower <steve.do...@python.org> added the comment:
> Personally, I don't think that your "read of it" in #msg345990 is relevant to > the discussion of the PR (I don't mean this in a bad way). It's relevant to the *existence* of the PR, because when you follow through the rest of the thought process, there is no need for a PR at all, and so no need to discuss it. There's no reason to assume that a PR is required just because an issue was opened. If we'd broken actual functionality in CPython or Cython, then there'd be a bug to consider. But all we broke is a misuse of a reserved field, and if it were in a single project then we wouldn't have spent anywhere near this amount of time discussing it - it's *only* because Cython was putting it in all its generated code that there's any reason to even look at this, as it could have a disproportionate effect if we believe it's a fair assumption that Cython-generated code targeting 3.7 should also work on 3.8. I've stated my opinion on that, but a decision either requires consensus from those of us involved here (Victor and Stefan) or an appeal to a higher authority (steering council). ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <https://bugs.python.org/issue37250> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
