Author gvanrossum
Recipients MHordecki, efosmark, eric.araujo, flox, glyph, gvanrossum, jonas.wagner, milesck, orsenthil, quentel, r.david.murray, taleinat, vstinner
Date 2013-01-22.19:16:07
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <CAP7+vJKJdzabQqDeZVG8ZHXDwvUcYnn791_S+8f5VpKHbMKpkg@mail.gmail.com>
In-reply-to <1358880089.47.0.247557612175.issue12411@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
Content
Does anyone who was on this bug previously (e.g. the original author
or the reviewers) know what was holding up the patch? Does it need
more review? More tests? Is there any reason to reject fixing this at
all? (I hope not.) As far as replacing the whole thing with a call
into the other code goes, I'm hesitant if only because we don't have
enough unit tests for the edge cases of the implementation that would
be deleted, so if the wholesale replacement were to break user code we
wouldn't find out until after it's been released. Fixing it seems less
risky.
History
Date User Action Args
2013-01-22 19:16:07gvanrossumsetrecipients: + gvanrossum, orsenthil, vstinner, taleinat, glyph, eric.araujo, jonas.wagner, r.david.murray, efosmark, milesck, MHordecki, flox, quentel
2013-01-22 19:16:07gvanrossumlinkissue12411 messages
2013-01-22 19:16:07gvanrossumcreate