"M.-A. Lemburg" <mal@lemburg.com> writes: > I haven't seen any messages about this on python-dev. Did I miss > something ? No. For a change like this, I did not think consultation was necessary. > The switch from Unicode 3.0 is a big one since 3.2 introduces > non-BMP character points for the first time. I disagree; it's a small change. Just look at the patch itself: apart from the (considerably large) generated data, there were very few actual changes to source code: Changing a few limits was sufficient. Since there are no backwards compatibility issues, and no design choices (apart from the choice of updating the database at all), this is a straight-forward change. > I also don't think that it is a good idea to ship the Unicode > 3.2 database while the code behaves as defined in Unicode 3.0. Can you please elaborate? What code behaves as defined in Unicode 3.0 that is incompatible with the Unicode 3.2 database? > And last not least, I'd like to be asked before you make such > changes. I find this quite a possessive view, and I would prefer if you bring up technical arguments instead of procedural ones, but ok... I was under the impression that I can apply my own professional judgement when deciding what patches to apply without consultation, in what cases to ask on python-dev, and when to submit a patch to SF. Apparently, this impression is wrong. Can you please give precise instructions what constitutes "such a change"? Also, should I back this change out? Regards, Martin
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