Message331347
Ah, that's my mistake. I have always been under the impression that "Versions" meant "versions affected", not "versions that this needs to be fixed for". I usually just selected the ones where I had verified that it's a problem.
I do not think this should be backported to 3.6. From the discussion in the datetime-SIG mailing list, we have realized that this change will *also* break anyone whose default constructor does not support the same signature as the base datetime. I think this is probably not a major problem (many other alternate constructors assume that the constructor accepts arguments as datetime does), but it's not something that I think we should be changing in a patch version. |
|
Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
2018-12-07 19:49:07 | p-ganssle | set | recipients:
+ p-ganssle, belopolsky, vstinner |
2018-12-07 19:49:07 | p-ganssle | set | messageid: <1544212147.54.0.788709270274.issue32417@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
2018-12-07 19:49:07 | p-ganssle | link | issue32417 messages |
2018-12-07 19:49:07 | p-ganssle | create | |
|