Message 208361 - Python tracker

➜

This issue tracker has been migrated to GitHub, and is currently read-only.
For more information, see the GitHub FAQs in the Python's Developer Guide.

Author	larry
Recipients	georg.brandl, larry, pitrou, serhiy.storchaka, zach.ware
Date	2014-01-17.20:58:47
SpamBayes Score	-1.0
Marked as misclassified	Yes
Message-id	<[email protected]>
In-reply-to

Content
I have backed out the "args" -> "_args" change. Not because I'm giving up on it, or that I necessarily think it's a bad idea, but because there are some changes happening in #20189 that will make it easier / that would conflict if I attacked it now. The resulting patch is smaller than the first iteration. And since you said it was fine except for that, I assume this patch is fine and can go in?

I have backed out the "args" -> "_args" change.  Not because I'm giving up on it, or that I necessarily think it's a bad idea, but because there
are some changes happening in #20189 that will make it easier / that would conflict if I attacked it now.

The resulting patch is smaller than the first iteration.  And since you said it was fine except for that, I assume this patch is fine and can go in?

History
Date	User	Action	Args
2014-01-17 20:58:49	larry	set	recipients: + larry, georg.brandl, pitrou, zach.ware, serhiy.storchaka
2014-01-17 20:58:48	larry	set	messageid: <[email protected]>
2014-01-17 20:58:48	larry	link	issue20287 messages
2014-01-17 20:58:47	larry	create