On Friday 08 September 2006 18:24, Steve Holden wrote: > > As this can't be considered a bugfix (that I can see), I'd be against it > > being checked into 2.5. > > Are you suggesting that Python's inability to correctly handle Unicode > path elements isn't a bug? Or simply that this inability isn't currently > described in a bug report on Sourceforge? I'm suggesting that adding the ability to handle unicode paths is a *new* *feature*. If people actually want to see 2.5 final ever released, they're going to have to accept that "oh, but just this _one_ _more_ _thing_" is not going to fly. We're _well_ past beta1, where new features should have been added. At this point, we have to cut another release candidate. This is far too much to add during the release candidate stage. > I agree it's a relatively large patch for a release candidate but if > prudence suggests deferring it, it should be a *definite* for 2.5.1 and > subsequent releases. Possibly. I remain unconvinced. -- Anthony Baxter <anthony at interlink.com.au> It's never too late to have a happy childhood.
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