RetroSearch Browse

Sun Mar 2 09:48:52 CET 2014 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2014-March/132877.html

On 3/2/2014 1:51 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 4:07 PM, Terry Reedy <tjreedy at udel.edu> wrote:
>> On 3/1/2014 7:11 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
>>> I have a couple of patches outstanding, notably issue 20249 [2], which
>>> is a small change, has a patch, and has no activity or nosying since
>>> its creation.
>>
>> And the other?
>
> http://bugs.python.org/issue19494 has a patch that I uploaded, but
> it's more accurately someone else's patch and I just made a slight
> tweak to it.

The line numbers in your patch do not match the line numbers in the 3.4 
file.  Did you prepare against 3.3?

The base issue here is a policy question about accommodating violations 
of the standard. The main maintainer of the urllib.requests module is 
Senthil. I would not decide the policy question.

> http://bugs.python.org/issue20729 is an issue that I opened, and
> there's a patch at the issue, but I didn't write the patch.

I think Serhiy's patch is 'conservative', so I could look at it and see 
if I agree that it is the right minimal change.

> Technically, neither really counts,

Martin's offer was to review a patch that one wanted reviewed, not 
necessarily one that one wrote.

-- 
Terry Jan Reedy

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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2014-March/132877.html below:

[Python-Dev] "Five reviews to get yours reviewed"?