[Python-Dev] "Five reviews to get yours reviewed"?
Terry Reedy
tjreedy at udel.edu
Sun Mar 2 09:48:52 CET 2014
More information about the Python-Dev mailing list
Sun Mar 2 09:48:52 CET 2014
- Previous message: [Python-Dev] "Five reviews to get yours reviewed"?
- Next message: [Python-Dev] "Five reviews to get yours reviewed"?
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
On 3/2/2014 1:51 AM, Chris Angelico wrote: > On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 4:07 PM, Terry Reedy <tjreedy at udel.edu> wrote: >> On 3/1/2014 7:11 PM, Chris Angelico wrote: >>> I have a couple of patches outstanding, notably issue 20249 [2], which >>> is a small change, has a patch, and has no activity or nosying since >>> its creation. >> >> And the other? > > http://bugs.python.org/issue19494 has a patch that I uploaded, but > it's more accurately someone else's patch and I just made a slight > tweak to it. The line numbers in your patch do not match the line numbers in the 3.4 file. Did you prepare against 3.3? The base issue here is a policy question about accommodating violations of the standard. The main maintainer of the urllib.requests module is Senthil. I would not decide the policy question. > http://bugs.python.org/issue20729 is an issue that I opened, and > there's a patch at the issue, but I didn't write the patch. I think Serhiy's patch is 'conservative', so I could look at it and see if I agree that it is the right minimal change. > Technically, neither really counts, Martin's offer was to review a patch that one wanted reviewed, not necessarily one that one wrote. -- Terry Jan Reedy
- Previous message: [Python-Dev] "Five reviews to get yours reviewed"?
- Next message: [Python-Dev] "Five reviews to get yours reviewed"?
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Python-Dev mailing list