On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 7:15 PM, Donald Stufft
On Mon, Sep 1, 2014, at 08:15 PM, Chris Jerdonek wrote:
I don't know exactly. I'd say a change that in your judgment you think has a non-trivial chance of breaking existing tools. Holger is probably in a better position to say. I was just speaking in support of his request, which seemed reasonable to me.
--Chris
Which is exactly my point. This change was minor. It didn't break anything but devpi and it wouldn't have broken devpi to my knowledge except for an assert statement that wasn't particularly needed.
I already give notice (and discussion, often times even PEPs) for any change that I believe to be breaking. Wanting more is wanting notice on every single change on the off chance someone somewhere might have some dependency on any random implementation detail.
If you don't have a good sense of what changes might break existing tools and don't want to notify people, one possibility is to build in a delay between committing to the repo and deploying to production. Interested folks could monitor commits to the repo -- giving them a chance to ask questions and update their tools if necessary. --Chris
On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 5:03 PM, Donald Stufft
wrote: Changes like what exactly? This was a fairly minor change which is why there wasn't more notice.
On Sep 1, 2014, at 7:44 PM, Chris Jerdonek
wrote: FWIW, as a community member it doesn't seem unreasonable to me to expect that a certain amount of advance notice be given for changes like this, *especially* given that the tools are undocumented.