Message360399
| Author | nanjekyejoannah |
|---|---|
| Recipients | Valentyn Tymofieiev, brett.cannon, eric.snow, nanjekyejoannah, ncoghlan, p-ganssle, pablogsal, pitrou, vstinner |
| Date | 2020-01-21.14:14:27 |
| SpamBayes Score | -1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified | Yes |
| Message-id | <1579616067.52.0.12529655542.issue35943@roundup.psfhosted.org> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content | |
|---|---|
> Do you mean that there is a risk that the backport introduces a regression in another part of the code? If yes, I would suggest to not backport the change to *stable* branches. My worry are the many changes that are required to ceval to make this back port work. Not that I think we can not successfully backport things. we can. |
|
| History | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | User | Action | Args |
| 2020-01-21 14:14:27 | nanjekyejoannah | set | recipients: + nanjekyejoannah, brett.cannon, ncoghlan, pitrou, vstinner, eric.snow, p-ganssle, pablogsal, Valentyn Tymofieiev |
| 2020-01-21 14:14:27 | nanjekyejoannah | set | messageid: <1579616067.52.0.12529655542.issue35943@roundup.psfhosted.org> |
| 2020-01-21 14:14:27 | nanjekyejoannah | link | issue35943 messages |
| 2020-01-21 14:14:27 | nanjekyejoannah | create | |