martin wrote: > I'd be concerned about the "pure bugfix" nature of the current SRE > code base. well, unlike you, I wrote the code. > - def getgroup(self, name=None): > + def opengroup(self, name=None): > > The famous last words here are "those changes can do no > harm". However, somebody might rely on Pattern objects having a > getgroup method (even though it is not documented). it may sound weird, but I'd rather support people who rely on regular expressions working as documented... > For the bugfix release, I'd feel much better if a clear set of pure > bug fixes were identified, along with a list of bugs they fix. So "no > new feature" would rule out "no new constant named MAGIC" (*). what makes you so sure that MAGIC wasn't introduced to deal with a bug report? (hint: it was) > If a "pure bugfix" happens to break something as well, we can atleast > find out what it fixed in return, and then probably find that the fix > justified the breakage. more work, and far fewer bugs fixed. let's hope you have lots of volunteers lined up... Cheers /F
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4