Author terry.reedy
Recipients X-Istence, a.badger, barry, christian.heimes, dhess, l0nwlf, martin.panter, maxking, pitrou, pombredanne, r.david.murray, sascha_silbe, siona, sivert, steve.dower, terry.reedy, wichert, wodny
Date 2021-01-10.02:17:06
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <1610245027.47.0.292383517518.issue4963@roundup.psfhosted.org>
In-reply-to
Content
Phillipe: I was the first to comment, but had no futher involvement with this issue until now.  Multiple people, including coredevs, considered the old behavior to be buggy and multiple people, including coredevs, contributed to the fix.  You are unlikely to prevail arguing that the change is totally a mistake and should be totally reverted.

> the behaviour changes and this is a regression

Code bug fixes are supposed to change behavior.  We know that the change will break code that depends on the buggy behavior.  That is why we include an updated change log with each release.

The intended change is *not* a regression in itself.  A regression in a bug fix is an unintended change to some other behavior.  I don't believe (but could be mistaken) that you have argued or shown this.

Assuming that you are not asking for complete reversion, I suggest that you open a new issue, referencing this one, but taking the current behavior as the given.  Propose a revised behavior and argue that it is even better.  If you want to argue that the current behavior is buggy (compared to the current docs) so that your proposed revision should be backported, make that a separate argument.
History
Date User Action Args
2021-01-10 02:17:07terry.reedysetrecipients: + terry.reedy, barry, pitrou, christian.heimes, wichert, a.badger, r.david.murray, siona, sascha_silbe, l0nwlf, X-Istence, martin.panter, steve.dower, wodny, maxking, pombredanne, sivert, dhess
2021-01-10 02:17:07terry.reedysetmessageid: <1610245027.47.0.292383517518.issue4963@roundup.psfhosted.org>
2021-01-10 02:17:07terry.reedylinkissue4963 messages
2021-01-10 02:17:06terry.reedycreate