RetroSearch Browse

Wed Mar 14 22:14:14 CET 2007 · http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2007-March/071943.html

Phillip J. Eby wrote:
> At 06:47 PM 3/14/2007 +0100, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
>   
>> Phillip J. Eby schrieb:
>>     
>>> This backwards-incompatible change is therefore contrary to policy and
>>> should be reverted, pending a proper transition plan for the change
>>> (such as introduction of an alternative API and deprecation of the
>>> existing one.)
>>>       
>> I'm clearly opposed to this proposal, or else I wouldn't have committed
>> the change in the first place.
>>     
>
> That much is obvious.  But I haven't seen any explanation as to why 
> explicitly-documented and explicitly-tested behavior should be treated as a 
> bug in policy terms, just because people don't like the documented and 
> tested behavior.
>
>   
Because it's clearly a bug and has even been shown to fix bugs in 
current code ?

Honestly it is this sort of pointless prevarication that gives 
python-dev a bad name.

Michael Foord

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2007-March/071943.html below:

[Python-Dev] Proposal to revert r54204 (splitext change)