Stefan Krah <ste...@bytereef.org> added the comment:
> Finally, while Raymond and Antoine are welcome to voice their opinions on the > matter, your change is landing in 3.9.0b4 which I'm about to announce. So we > won't be reverting it. In the future let's make sure we stick to the release > calendar to avoid similar heat. If we need to bend a rule or two, that's > okay, it happens. Making a fellow core developer stamp your change in such > case will increase visibility, and is a good practice regardless, required > for example in avionics software. I've added Antoine, Mark and Raymond because they know the history of libmpdec, unlike people who came later. Like for libffi, it is not feasible to get review, because there is no time. This would effectively mean that nothing ever changes. The alternative is to trust that the zero fault situation continues. Or download *one* of the gigantic test suites, which I have laboriously updated for this release: http://www.bytereef.org/software/mpdecimal/releases/mpdecimal-testit-2.5.0.tar.gz The second one isn't even published. So again, just clamoring for review (which often is just rubber stamping) leads to nothing but scoring a few cheap points. ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <https://bugs.python.org/issue40874> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
