➜
This issue tracker has been migrated to GitHub,
and is currently read-only.
For more information,
see the GitHub FAQs in the Python's Developer Guide.
Created on 2019-05-21 14:53 by jdemeyer, last changed 2022-04-11 14:59 by admin. This issue is now closed.
| Pull Requests | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| URL | Status | Linked | Edit |
| PR 13464 | open | jdemeyer, 2019-05-21 15:16 | |
| Messages (4) | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| msg343061 - (view) | Author: Jeroen Demeyer (jdemeyer) *  |
Date: 2019-05-21 14:53 | |
If PEP 590 is accepted: in code comments, replace tp_print by tp_vectorcall_offset and (while we're at it) tp_reserved by tp_as_async. |
|||
| msg343065 - (view) | Author: Petr Viktorin (petr.viktorin) *  |
Date: 2019-05-21 14:59 | |
All these issues are quite confusing. If PEP 590 is accepted, all of it will need to be implemented. Why open separate issues for all the parts? |
|||
| msg343071 - (view) | Author: Pablo Galindo Salgado (pablogsal) * |
Date: 2019-05-21 16:32 | |
I would suggest centralizing all PRs on the same issue as Petr is indicating to reduce the noise, especially before the PEP is accepted. |
|||
| msg343147 - (view) | Author: Jeroen Demeyer (jdemeyer) * |
Date: 2019-05-22 05:14 | |
I see what you mean now. One bpo issue with many pull requests. I was following the CPython policy that every pull request needed an issue, but it didn't occur to me to put multiple independent PRs on one issue. |
|||
| History | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | User | Action | Args |
| 2022-04-11 14:59:15 | admin | set | github: 81176 |
| 2019-05-22 05:14:28 | jdemeyer | set | status: open -> closed resolution: duplicate messages: + msg343147 stage: patch review -> resolved |
| 2019-05-21 16:32:50 | pablogsal | set | nosy:
+ pablogsal messages: + msg343071 |
| 2019-05-21 15:16:46 | jdemeyer | set | keywords:
+ patch stage: patch review pull_requests: + pull_request13375 |
| 2019-05-21 14:59:49 | petr.viktorin | set | messages: + msg343065 |
| 2019-05-21 14:53:24 | jdemeyer | create | |