Sent from my iPhone On 3 Aug 2013, at 19:07, "R. David Murray" <rdmurray at bitdance.com> wrote: > On Sat, 03 Aug 2013 10:27:30 -0400, Matt McClure <matthewlmcclure at gmail.com> wrote: >> Michael Foord <fuzzyman <at> voidspace.org.uk> writes: >>> On 2 Aug 2013, at 19:19, Antoine Pitrou <solipsis <at> pitrou.net> wrote: >>>> The patch is basically ready for commit, except for a possible doc >>>> addition, no? >>> >>> Looks to be the case, reading the patch it looks fine. I'm currently on >> holiday until Monday. >>> If anyone is motivated to do the docs too and commit that would be great. >> Otherwise I'll >>> get to it on my return. >> >> It looks like the patch is based on what will become 3.4. Would backporting >> it to 2.7 be feasible? What's involved in doing so? > > That depends on how likely Michale thinks it is that it might break > things. > It smells to me like a new feature rather than a bugfix, and it's a moderately big change. I don't think it can be backported to 2.7 other than through unittest2. Michael >> I took a crack at the docs. > > Thanks. Please post your patch to the issue, it will get lost here. > > --David
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