On Feb 16, 2020, at 10:20, Ned Deily wrote:
> Rather than continuing this change in 3.9 introducing yet another, even more
> unexpected behavior, I think we should first try to address what appears to
> me to be the (a?) root cause issue: urlparse's API is not suited for parsing
> both strictl
Thank you all. This is reverted in 3.8.2 and 3.7.7 - with NEWS explaining
the behavior clearly.
For the points that Ned brought up for 3.9, I will continue in the bug
report https://bugs.python.org/issue27657
This discussion can be considered complete and closed.
Thanks for the support.
On Sun, F
OK, let's revert this for 3.8.2. I will make 3.8.2rc2 with this to highlight
the revert and get some testing in.
--
Best regards,
Łukasz Langa
> On 16 Feb 2020, at 19:31, Senthil Kumaran wrote:
>
>
> I have created the PRs for the revert in 3.8.2 and 3.7.7
>
> https://github.com/python/cp
I have created the PRs for the revert in 3.8.2 and 3.7.7
https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/18525 (3.8) - Acceptance definitely
depends on the RM ( Łukasz' s call) and I will support it.
https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/18526 (3.7) - Let this be reverted
only if 3.8 gets reverted.
@Ned
On Feb 16, 2020, at 07:21, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> FWIW, I agree with Senthil here. A slight behaviour change in 3.9 is
> fine, especially in an area where the "right" semantics are not
> immediately obvious. What we want to avoid is breaking behaviour
> changes in bugfix releases.
I agree tota
FWIW, I agree with Senthil here. A slight behaviour change in 3.9 is
fine, especially in an area where the "right" semantics are not
immediately obvious. What we want to avoid is breaking behaviour
changes in bugfix releases.
Regards
Antoine.
Le 16/02/2020 à 13:13, Senthil Kumaran a écrit :
On Sun, Feb 16, 2020 at 2:20 AM Ned Deily wrote:
>
>
> For 3.9.0, I recommend we reconsider this change (temporarily reverting
> it) and consider whether an API change to accommodate the various use cases
> would be better
>
For 3.9. - I am ready to defend the patch even at the cost of the break
On Feb 15, 2020, at 09:00, Senthil Kumaran wrote:
> As we have to a decision here, my vote is to revert the patch in 3.8.2 and
> 3.7.7
> I have gone back-and-forth with this thinking, and it seems revert might
> address some definite complaints we have got.
> The problem is contained to single v
Hi Łukasz,
As we have to a decision here, my vote is to revert the patch in 3.8.2 and
3.7.7
I have gone back-and-forth with this thinking, and it seems revert might
address some definite complaints we have got.
The problem is contained to single version, and users can upgrade to the
next one.
Tha
Ned, what are you doing with this for 3.7.7? Reverting?
- Ł
> On 13 Feb 2020, at 22:18, Barry Warsaw wrote:
>
> On Feb 11, 2020, at 05:26, Łukasz Langa wrote:
>>
>> I'll let others voice their opinions but my intuition for 3.8.x is to leave
>> your patch be. True, it should not have been ba
On Feb 11, 2020, at 05:26, Łukasz Langa wrote:
>
> I'll let others voice their opinions but my intuition for 3.8.x is to leave
> your patch be. True, it should not have been backported but it was, and it
> was already released as part of 3.8.1 and now 3.8.2rc1.
I don’t think you should worry a
On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 1:57 AM Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>
>
> I would say it depends what the "revert" means:
> - revert to pre-bugfix behavior?
>
This.
Because the bug-fix was a bringing in backward-incompatible change that
certain users are not happy with.
https://github.com/mozilla/bleach/issue
Le 13/02/2020 à 03:27, Senthil Kumaran a écrit :
> Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
>
> I was originally thinking that if the problem is contained only to 3.8.1
> and 3.7.6 and, reverted 3.8.2.
I would say it depends what the "revert" means:
- revert to pre-bugfix behavior?
- revert then apply
Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
I was originally thinking that if the problem is contained only to 3.8.1
and 3.7.6 and, reverted 3.8.2.
If revert is not an option, then, I can add either of these in the
documentation as the recommendation to deal with this problem.
1. Special case the "sys.vers
I'll let others voice their opinions but my intuition for 3.8.x is to leave
your patch be. True, it should not have been backported but it was, and it was
already released as part of 3.8.1 and now 3.8.2rc1.
The user will have to special-case the change in behavior anyway. I feel like
it is easi
Hi Łukasz ,
I wanted to push a revert in urlparse module in Python 3.8.2
I sent a note about this to python-committers, are you okay with this?
Thanks,
Senthil
On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 6:27 AM Senthil Kumaran wrote:
> Hello Python-Committers,
>
> In https://bugs.python.org/issue27657, I introd
16 matches
Mail list logo
