> On 4 Feb 2019, at 03:10, Raymond Hettinger <raymond.hettinger at gmail.com> wrote: > > >> On Feb 3, 2019, at 5:40 PM, Terry Reedy <tjreedy at udel.edu> wrote: >> >> On 2/3/2019 7:55 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote: >>> Also, did anyone ask Davin directly to roll it back? >> >> Antoine posted on the issue, along with Robert O. Robert reviewed and make several suggestions. @Terry: Robert is usually called Ronald :-) > > I think the PR sat in a stable state for many months, and it looks like RO's review comments came *after* the commit. That’s because I only noticed the PR after commit: The PR was merged within an hour of creating the BPO issue. > > FWIW, with dataclasses we decided to get the PR committed early, long before most of the tests and all of the docs. The principle was that bigger changes needed to go in as early as possible in the release cycle so that we could thoroughly exercise it (something that almost never happens while something is in the PR stage). It would be great if the same came happen here. IIRC, shared memory has long been the holy grail for multiprocessing, helping to mitigate its principle disadvantage (the cost of moving data between processes). It's something we really want. But with dataclasses there was public discussion on the API. This is a new API with no documentation in a part of the library that is known to be complex in nature. Ronald -- Twitter: @ronaldoussoren Blog: https://blog.ronaldoussoren.net/
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