Guido van Rossum wrote:
>
> Anyway, the conclusion seems to be:
>
> - You violated the process as commonly understood by checking in a new
> module without sufficient consensus.
>
> - What you checked in is no good; it needs to be redesigned and
> renamed.
>
> - If you absolutely do not want to use the patch manager for this, you
> can check it in under the nondist/sandbox part of the tree.
I'd add one more thing: there seems to be enough confusion and
disagreement that this probably should be a PEP.
--
--- Aahz (@pobox.com)
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6 <*> http://www.rahul.net/aahz/
Androgynous poly kinky vanilla queer het Pythonista
I don't really mind a person having the last whine, but I do mind someone
else having the last self-righteous whine.
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