classification
Title: PEP 3121, 384 refactoring applied to elementtree module
Type: resource usage Stage: patch review
Components: Extension Modules Versions: Python 3.4
process
Status: open Resolution:
Dependencies: Superseder:
Assigned To: eli.bendersky Nosy List: Arfrever, Robin.Schreiber, asvetlov, effbot, eli.bendersky, pitrou
Priority: normal Keywords: patch, pep3121

Created on 2012-08-14 18:25 by Robin.Schreiber, last changed 2013-01-13 22:52 by eli.bendersky.

Files
File name Uploaded Description Edit
_elementtree_pep3121-384_v0.patch Robin.Schreiber, 2012-08-14 18:25
_elementtree_pep3121-384_v1.patch Robin.Schreiber, 2012-12-14 16:37
Messages (5)
msg168217 - (view) Author: Robin Schreiber (Robin.Schreiber) * Date: 2012-08-14 18:25
Changes proposed in PEP3121 and PEP384 have now been applied to the elementtree module!
msg168231 - (view) Author: Antoine Pitrou (pitrou) * (Python committer) Date: 2012-08-14 19:12
See issue15390 review comments :)
msg177465 - (view) Author: Robin Schreiber (Robin.Schreiber) * Date: 2012-12-14 16:37
Patch updated to work with current 3.4 Branch version of elementtree.
msg178501 - (view) Author: Eli Bendersky (eli.bendersky) * (Python committer) Date: 2012-12-29 15:12
Thanks for the patch. I'll take a look.
msg179899 - (view) Author: Eli Bendersky (eli.bendersky) * (Python committer) Date: 2013-01-13 22:52
I looked at the patch a bit more in depth and must admit that I'm reluctant to apply it. It's a very large patch with very little documentation about what steps are taken and why, and I just don't see the motivation. 

The way I see it, PEP 384 is great for compatibility of third-party extensions and embeddings of Python, but much less critical for a module that's always distributed as part of stdlib and thus is kept in exact sync with the ABI of the Python version it comes with. Correct me if I'm wrong.

That said, I won't object to some refactoring if it improves the code. But when such large changes are proposed, I really prefer to see small, incremental patches that replace just a part of the code. Such patches should come with an explanation of why the change is made (i.e. which part of PEP 384 does it adhere to).
History
Date User Action Args
2013-01-13 22:52:36eli.benderskysetmessages: + msg179899
2012-12-29 15:12:05eli.benderskysetassignee: eli.bendersky
messages: + msg178501
2012-12-14 17:44:45Arfreversetnosy: + Arfrever
2012-12-14 16:37:24Robin.Schreibersetfiles: + _elementtree_pep3121-384_v1.patch
keywords: + patch
messages: + msg177465
2012-11-08 13:39:49Robin.Schreibersetkeywords: + pep3121, - patch
2012-08-27 03:41:57belopolskylinkissue15787 dependencies
2012-08-17 16:36:58asvetlovsetnosy: + asvetlov
2012-08-14 19:12:39pitrousetnosy: + eli.bendersky, pitrou

messages: + msg168231
stage: patch review
2012-08-14 18:33:34Robin.Schreibersetnosy: + effbot
2012-08-14 18:25:20Robin.Schreibercreate