<html><body>On 09:17 pm, brett@python.org wrote:<br /><br />>But the key point I want to get across is people should not being<br />>getting mad at Martin.  The people who are getting all bent out of<br />>shape over this should be upset at python-dev as a whole for not<br />>having a clear policy on this sort of thing.  Martin just happened to<br />>be the guy who made a change that sparked this and he is explaining<br />>his thinking behind it (which also happens to mirror my thinking on<br />>this whole situation).  It could have easily been someone else.<br /><br />On part of this point, I have to agree.  Nullum crimen, nulla poena sine praevia lege poenali.<br /><br />However, the decision was a bad one regardless of the existing policy, and sets a bad precedent while we are discussing this policy.  I could be wrong, but I think it would be reasonable to assume that if Martin strongly supports such a change, Martin would oppose a policy which would strictly forbid such changes, and it is just such a policy that Python needs.<br /><br />>Bottom line, let's work together as a group to come up with a policy<br />>in a civil, positive manner (in a new thread!) and let the result of<br />>that decision guide what is done with this fix.  Yelling at poor<br />>Martin about one patch when we could be spending this effort on trying<br />>to discuss what kind of policy we want is not getting us anywhere.<br /><br />I *am* working on that on the side and I hope to have something coherent and whole to present here, in that different thread, very soon.  The point, for me, of participating in *this* thread is (A) to continue to keep the issue high-visibility, because in my opinion, compatibility policy is _THE_ issue that python-dev needs to deal with now, (B) to deal with the aforementioned strongly implied opposition to such a policy, and (C) last but not least, to actually get the patch reverted, since, while it is not the larger problem, it is, itself, a problem that needs to be fixed.<br /></body></html>