MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <moi49a$oe5$1@ger.gmane.org>
References: <moenuj$f11$1@ger.gmane.org> <moeqtn$mh0$1@ger.gmane.org> <moeurf$a6f$1@ger.gmane.org> <mailman.695.1437273248.3674.python-list@python.org> <55ab2b73$0$1664$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> <CABicbJ+KLfG+egBFT1-5m_8Ft0UEfi6f7cbWPzDFLSWRE2zV5Q@mail.gmail.com> <moi49a$oe5$1@ger.gmane.org>
From: Devin Jeanpierre <jeanpierreda@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 00:13:09 -0700
Subject: Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?
To: Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu>
Cc: "comp.lang.python" <python-list@python.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Precedence: list
Newsgroups: comp.lang.python
Message-ID: <mailman.774.1437376436.3674.python-list@python.org>
Lines: 53
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2001:888:2000:d::a6
Path: csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!news.stben.net!border1.nntp.ams1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed8.news.xs4all.nl!post.news.xs4all.nl!not-for-mail
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.python:94219

I think you're missing the line where I said all the relevant
conversation happened in IRC, and that you should refer to logs.

On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 11:25 PM, Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> wrote:
> On 7/19/2015 9:20 PM, Devin Jeanpierre wrote:
>
>> Search your logs for https://bugs.python.org/issue17094
>> http://bugs.python.org/issue5315
>>
>> I was most frustrated by the first case --
>
>> the patch was (informally) rejected
>
> By 'the patch', I presume you mean current-frames-cleanup.patch
> by Stefan Ring, who said it "is certainly not the most complete solution,
> but it solves my problem.". It was reviewed a month later by a core dev, who
> said it had two defects.  Do you expect us to apply defective patches?

No, I meant my patch. It was discussed in IRC, and I gave the search
term to grep for. (The issue URL.)

>> in favor of the "right" fix,
>
>
> "right" is your word. Natali simply uploaded an alternate patch that did not
> have the defects cited.  It went through 4 versions, two by Pitrou, before
> the commit and close 2 months later, with the comment "Hopefully there
> aren't any applications relying on the previous behaviour."

No, "right" is the word used by members of #python-dev, referrig to
Antoine's fix.

> Two years later, last May, you proposed and uploaded a patch with what looks
> to be a new and different approach.  It has been ignored.  In the absence of
> a core dev focused on 2.7, I expect that this will continue. Too bad you did
> not upload it in Feb 2013, before the review and fix started.

I'm not sure what you're implying here. It couldn't be helped.

>> and http://bugs.python.org/issue5315
>
> Another fairly obscure issue for most of us. Five years ago, this was turned
> into a doc issue, but no patch was ever submitted for either 2.x or 3.x.
> Again, no particular prejudice against 2.x.
>
> In May, you posted a bugfix which so far has been ignored.  Not too
> surprising.  I submitted a ping and updated the versions.  If anyone
> responds, you might be asked for a patch against 3.4 or 3.5.

Again, the prejudice was expressed in IRC. It was ignored because you
can just use asyncio in 3.x, and because the bug was old.

-- Devin