> On Dec 28, 2020, at 9:50 AM, Glyph <gl...@twistedmatrix.com> wrote:
>
> I'm also against this. Inactivity for a week or two is not enough reason to
> allow a known regression to be present in a release.
>
I should clarify that maybe I haven't processed the full context for this
specific issue though. I do think it's acceptable to time out on an issue
where a release blocker is claimed to exist if e.g. we can't reproduce the
problem, or if it's a request for an above-and-beyond compatibility thing (like
"please restore this private API, its removal breaks our application"). As a
courtesy we might block a release for a small amount of time while waiting for
a reproducer or a short-term private-API compatibility shim but the onus there
is really on the reporter.
From what I can see though, this one is a pretty straightforward case of us
just introducing a bug into a perfectly valid configuration though, just not
one we happen to have in our test matrix right now.
-g
_______________________________________________
Twisted-Python mailing list
Twisted-Python@twistedmatrix.com
https://twistedmatrix.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/twisted-python
