On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 23:20:52 -0400, Alexander Belopolsky <alexander.belopol...@gmail.com> wrote: > I will not go into details here beyond referring to > http://bugs.python.org/issue8154, but if you follow the link, you'll > see that there was not a consensus on how the issue should be > addressed and even whether or not it was a bug. Nevertheless the > patch was committed both to the trunk and to 2.6 without any answer to > my concerns and without even an rNNN link to the committed revision. > > I think it would be nice if committers would not cut the discussion > short without at least a note explaining their decision.
I think the reason this happened in this bug is that it *appeared* as though the same problem had been encountered and already fixed in python3, and all that was needed was a backport. We were groping our way toward deciding that that wasn't actually the case when Matthias committed the patch. Possibly my fault, since I said that I agreed that it should be fixed. As I've now noted on the tracker (and in the Ubuntu tracker just for good measure), I don't think that commit was appropriate, at least for 2.6, and probably not for 2.7 either. I also hope that Matthias will put in commit numbers in the future, since it is very helpful. Even better, I hope that we can automate this after the switch to Mercurial (but someone will need to write the code to do it, of course...) --David _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
