RetroSearch Browse

Wed Mar 16 14:11:29 CET 2011 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2011-March/109367.html

Am 16.03.11 08:06, schrieb Nick Coghlan:
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 3:20 AM, Stefan Behnel<stefan_ml at behnel.de>  wrote:
>> I still consider this is mostly a communication issue. If this change had
>> been properly written up, preferably in a PEP, including the reasoning for
>> it to get done, I think this whole discussion would not have been necessary.
>
> Yes, I think we need to keep "topic of wider interest" in mind when
> deciding whether or not to write up a PEP, even if the change isn't
> particularly controversial amongst the core developers. We made a
> similar mistake with the zipfile and directory execution changes.

PEP 5 actually requires that backwards-incompatible changes must be 
defined in a PEP. This wasn't done in this case; I agree it should have.

I guess it's not too late to write this PEP, even though that's after 
the fact.

Regards,
Martin

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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2011-March/109367.html below:

[Python-Dev] public visibility of python-dev decisions "before it's too late"