<div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 11:20, anatoly techtonik <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:techtonik@gmail.com">techtonik@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
There are many API changes and proposals that were forgotten and<br>
didn't get into Python 3, although they should be, because it was the<br>
only chance to change things with backwards compatibility break. For<br>
example <a href="http://bugs.python.org/issue1559549" target="_blank">http://bugs.python.org/issue1559549</a></blockquote><div><br></div><div>That can be added in 3.3.</div><div>To answer your comment on the issue: no investigation is needed. It didn't make it in yet because there was no code written for it. It's really not a big deal, it happens all the time.</div>
<div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">This happened, because of poor bug management, where community doesn't<br>
play any role in determining which issues are desired.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>The community absolutely plays a role in determining which issues are desired. They do this by action when they want something. A patch says a whole lot about desire.</div>
<div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
This mostly because of limitation of our tracker and desire of people<br>
to extend it to get damn "stars", module split, sorting, digging and<br>
tagging options.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I have no idea what any of this means.</div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
I won't be surprised if things won't change in the next couple of<br>
years, that's why I'd like to propose a very small change, so that<br>
when time will come to create Python4 (and standard library won't be<br>
separated from interpreter by this time), everybody can get quickly<br>
get a list of proposed API enhancements and filter which are eligible<br>
for the next BC API break. This change is a simple "api-refactoring"<br>
flag that could be added to corresponding issues by tracker users.</blockquote><div><br></div><div>I'm not sure I see the need for such a flag, as there are probably too few cases for this in the first place.</div></div>