On Sat, Jul 28, 2012 at 8:25 PM, Chris Jerdonek <chris.jerdo...@gmail.com> wrote: > Also, this response seems somewhat at odds to the response I got to a > patch that refactors part of regrest, fixes some bugs in it, and adds > its first unit tests (in particular, increasing code coverage): > > http://bugs.python.org/issue15302 > > The regrtest module only affects tests (which I would think qualifies > it as "tests"), and this is borne out by the following documentation > note (which is essentially the same as the note for test.support):
Asking that #15302 be postponed is a risk judgement taking into account "what do we have time to review before rc1?". Cleaning up the argument parsing in regrtest is definitely a good thing to do, but it's not an urgent fix. A similar judgement call will be made for any test suite changes between now and rc1: weighing up the risk of causing problems with the release process vs having improved tests at the time of the release. Anyone with commit rights gets to make that call, and we have three options: yes, no, or ask the Release Manager (Georg for 3.3). Getting to make that final call is one of the main responsibilities of the RM (the default answer is usually "No", given that whichever of us asks the question clearly has misgivings about the idea of including the change). Once we hit rc1, I expect Georg will fork the 3.3 maintenance branch, and any code changes between then and the final release will only happen specifically at his request (the docs will remain open to any committer). Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia _______________________________________________ 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
