On Sun, 25 Aug 2013 00:03:01 +1000 Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com> wrote: > If Stefan's "please revert this" as lxml.etree maintainer isn't > enough, then I'm happy to add a "please revert this" as a core > committer that is confused about how and when the new tulip-inspired > incremental parsing API should be used in preference to the existing > incremental parsing API, and believes this needs to be clearly > resolved before adding a second way to do it > (especially if there's a > possibility of using a different implementation strategy that avoids > adding the second way).
To be clear, again: anyone who wants to "see it resolved" can take over the issue and handle it by themselves. I'm done with it. Regards Antoine. _______________________________________________ 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
