On 25 August 2013 00:26, Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 25 August 2013 00:13, Antoine Pitrou <solip...@pitrou.net> wrote: >> 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. > > OK, I'll revert it for now, then. If someone else steps up to resolve > the API duplication problem, cool, otherwise we can continue to live > without this as a standard library feature.
On the other hand... because other changes have been made to the module since the original commit, a simple "hg backout" is no longer possible :( Stefan - if you'd like this reverted, you're going to have to either make the alternative solution work correctly, or else craft the commit to undo the API addition. However, I have at least reopened http://bugs.python.org/issue17741 Regards, 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
