Excerpts from Brett Cannon's message of 2017-01-21 19:51:48 +0000:
> What I'm picking up from this is (as a gross oversimplification):
>
> * Victor _wants_ code reviews
> * Raymond thinks we _need_ code reviews
>
> So the common theme here regardless of whether you agree with Raymond or
> Victor's approach to development is that we are not getting enough code
> reviews to go around. To me that's what the systemic issue is that this
> email is bringing up.
>
> Now I think most of us don't think the solution to the lack of reviews is
> to lower our standard of what it takes to become a core developer (this
> doesn't mean we shouldn't do a better job of identifying potential
> candidates, just that we shouldn't give people commit privileges after a
> single patch like some projects do). To me that means we need to address
> why out of 79 core developers only 39 have a single commit over the past
> year, 30/79 have more than 12 commits over that same time scale, 15/79
> people have more than 52 commits, and 2/79 people have over 365 commits (
> https://github.com/python/cpython/graphs/contributors?from=2016-01-22&to=2017-01-21&type=c
> for
> the stats).
>
> Some of you have said you're waiting for the GitHub migration before you
> start contributing again, which I can understand (I'm going to be sending
> an email with an update on that after this email to python-dev &
> core-workflow). But for those that have not told me that I don't know what
> it will take to get you involved again. For instance, not to pick on Andrew
> but he hasn't committed anything but he obviously still cares about the
> project. So what would it take to get Andrew to help review patches again
> so that the next time something involving random comes through he feels
> like taking a quick look?
>
> As I have said before, the reason I took on the GitHub migration is for us
> core developers. I want our workflow to be as easy as possible so that we
> can be as productive as possible. But the unspoken goal I have long-term is
> to get to the point that even dormant core devs want to contribute again,
> and to the point that everyone reviews a patch/month and more people
> reviewing a patch/week (although I'll take a patch/year to start). I want
> to get to the point that every person with commit privileges takes 30
> minutes a month to help with reviews and that the majority of folks take 30
> minutes a week to review (and please don't think this as a hard rule and if
> you don't the privileges go away, view this as an aspirational goal). Even
> if people who don't have time to review the kind of patches Victor is
> producing which triggered this thread, reviewing documentation patches can
> be done without deep knowledge of things and without taking much time. That
> way people who have time to review the bigger, more difficult patches can
> actually spend their time on those reviews and not worrying about patches
> fixing a spelling mistake or adding a new test to raise test coverage.
>
> All of this is so that I hope one day we get to the point where all patches
> require a review no matter who proposed the code change. Now I think we're
> quite a ways of from being there, but that's my moonshot goal for our
> workflow: that we have enough quality reviews coming in that we feel that
> even patches from fellow core developers is worth requiring the extra code
> check and disbursement of knowledge without feeling like a terrible drag on
> productivity.
>
> Once the GitHub migration has occurred I'm planning to tackle our Misc/NEWS
> problem and then automate Misc/ACKS. After that, though, I hope we can take

I would be happy to help with both of those tasks. I have experience
with both within the OpenStack project.

And put me on the list of "waiting for github" contributors. I
should have more time freeing up in a couple of months as I change
some of my responsibilities at work. I would like to help with the
migration and eventually regular reviews.

Doug

> the time to have a hard look at what in our workflow prevents people from
> making even occasional code reviews so that everyone wants to help out
> again (and if any of this interests you then please subscribe to
> core-workflow).
>
> On Fri, 20 Jan 2017 at 02:46 Victor Stinner <victor.stinner@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > Raymond Hettinger used a regression that I introduced in the builtin
> > sorted() function (in Python 3.6.0) to give me his feedback on my
> > FASTCALL work, but also on Argument Clinic.
> >
> > Context: http://bugs.python.org/issue29327#msg285848
> >
> > Since the reported issues is wider than just FASTCALL, including how I
> > contribute to CPython, I decided to discuss the topic with a wider
> > audience. I continue the discussion on python-committers to get the
> > opinion of the other core developers.
> >
> > Sorry for my very long answer! I tried to answer to each issues
> > reported by Raymond.
> >
> > Inaccurate summary: I'm a strong supporter of "it's better to ask
> > forgiveness than permission", whereas Raymond considers that I
> > introduced too many regressions with my workflow.
> >
> >
> > Raymond Hettinger added the comment:
> > > A few random thoughts that may or may not be helpful:
> > >
> > > * We now have two seasoned developers and one new core developer that
> > collectively are creating many non-trivial patches to core parts of Python
> > at an unprecedented rate of change.  The patches are coming in much faster
> > than they can reasonably be reviewed and carefully considered, especially
> > by devs such as myself who have very limited time available.  IMO, taken as
> > whole, these changes are destabilizing the language.  Python is so
> > successful and widely adopted that we can't afford a "shit happens"
> > attitude.  Perhaps that works in corners of the language, infrequently used
> > modules, but it makes less sense when touching the critical paths that have
> > had slow and careful evolution over 26 years.
> > >
> > > * Besides the volume of patches, one other reason that reviews are hard
> > to come by is that they apply new APIs that I don't fully understand yet.
> > There are perhaps two people on the planet who could currently give
> > thoughtful, correct, and critical evaluation of all those patches.
> > Everyone else is just watching them all fly by and hoping that something
> > good is happening.
> >
> > Since one or maybe even two years, I noticed that many of my issues
> > were blocked by the lack of reviews. As you wrote, only few developer
> > have the knowledge and background to be able to provide a good review
> > (not only "tests pass, so LGTM") on my changes modifying the Python
> > core.
> >
> > I also wanted to discuss this topic, but I didn't really know what to
> > propose. Let's take this opportunity to explain how I contribute to
> > CPython, especially how I decide to wait for a review or not.
> >
> > For each patch that I write, I estimate the risk of regression. You
> > may know that any regression is something unexpected, so such
> > estimation is tricky. Here is my heuristic:
> >
> > (*) if the patch is trivial (short, non controversal), I push it
> > immediatly.
> >
> >
> > (*) If I'm less confident, I open an issue and attach the patch. I
> > wait at least one day before pushing.
> >
> > It's strange, but the process of opening an issue and attaching the
> > patch usually helps to review the code myself (find bugs, or more
> > generally enhance the patch). Maybe because it forces me to review the
> > change one more time?
> >
> > If the change is not part of a larger patch serie, so doesn't block me
> > to move further, I try to keep the issue open around one week.
> >
> > The truth is that too few of my patches get a review :-/ Maybe I
> > should wait longer, but then it becomes harder for me to handle many
> > patches.
> >
> > Maybe it's a tooling issues. Recently, I started to use local branches
> > in a Git repository. It helps a lot of work on parallel on large
> > changes. Before, I only worked in a single directory (default/, the
> > default Mercurial branch) and applied/reverted patches everytime. It's
> > painful, especially when I have to use multiple computers, download
> > again publshed patches, etc. Maybe it will run smoother once CPython
> > will move to Git and GitHub.
> >
> > By the way, it's painful to squash a long patch serie into a giant
> > patch, much harder to review, where changes don't make sense at all at
> > the first look. Again, a better reviewing tool supporting patch series
> > (GitHub) will help here too.
> >
> > Not supporting patch series in our reviewing tool also explains why I
> > prefer to push than having to wait for a review. Rebasing manually
> > long patch series stored as giant .patch files is complicated.
> >
> >
> > (*) If the change changes an API or changes a core component, I wait
> > for at least one review from a core reviewer. Sometimes, I even send
> > an email to python-dev. Again, sometimes I don't get any feedback on
> > the patch nor the email after two weeks :-/ At least, I tried :-)
> > Usually, I get feedback in less than one week, or no feedback at all.
> > I understand that nobody understands my change or nobody cares :-)
> >
> > I totally understand that most core developers have a little amount of
> > time available to contribute to Python. I'm trying to find a
> > compromise between the risk of introducing regressions and being stuck
> > in my work. This email might help me to adjust my workflow.
> >
> > By the way, I'm trying to always run the full test suite (./python -m
> > test -rW -j0) before pushing any change. If I suspect that I may have
> > introduced reference leaks, I also run "./python -m test -R 3:3 ..."
> > on the tests related to the modified code to check for
> > memory/reference leaks.
> >
> >
> > > * One other reason for the lack of review comments in the enthusiasm and
> > fervor surrounding the patches.  I feel like there is a cost of questioning
> > whether the patches should be done or how they are done, like I am burning
> > little karma every time.  Sometimes it feels safest and most cordial to
> > just say nothing and let you make hundreds of semi-reviewed changes to just
> > about every critical part of the language.
> >
> > "semi-reviewed". Let me be more accurate: yeah, I do push a lot of
> > changes which were not reviewed by anyone (see above).
> >
> >
> > > * Historically, if there was creator or maintainer of the code who was
> > still active, that person would always be consulted and have a final say on
> > whether a change should be applied.  Now, we have code constantly being
> > changed without consulting the original author (for example, the recent and
> > catastrophic random initialization bug was due to application of a patch
> > without consulting the author of _randommodule.c and the maintainer of
> > random.py, or this change to sorted(), or the changes to decimal, etc).
> >
> > What do you mean by "author"? As you wrote, Python is now 26 years
> > old, so it had a very long history, and each file has a very long list
> > of "authors". I guess that you mean more a "maintainer".
> >
> > My problem is that I'm not aware of any explicit list of maintainers.
> > I didn't know that you were the maintainer of the random module before
> > you told me that at the Facebook sprint last september. I didn't
> > expect that the random module had a maintainer, I thought that any
> > core developer would be allowed to modify the code.
> >
> > Moreover, since I open an issue for most of my changes, it gives an
> > opportunity to maintainers to review changes. Maybe we need more
> > components in the bug tracker to notify maintainers of pending
> > changes?
> >
> >
> > You mentionned 3 different changes, let me reply.
> >
> >
> > (1) The random change: http://bugs.python.org/issue29085
> >
> > I introduced a regression in random.Random.seed(): a typo in the C
> > code has the consequence that the current time and process identifier
> > is used, instead of os.urandom(16), to initialize the Mersenne Twister
> > RNG.
> >
> > IMHO the regression is not "catastrophic". Only few developers
> > instanciate random.Random themself, random.Random must not be used for
> > security, etc. I let others decide if this bug was catastrophic or
> > not.
> >
> >
> > Since we are talking about the development process, let me see how the
> > change was made.
> >
> > Context: The PEP 524 has a long and painful history... Something like
> > more than 500 messages were sent on the bug tracker and python-dev,
> > and nobody was listening to each others, two security experts
> > "rage-quitted" Python because of this mess... I decided to try to fix
> > this issue in a constructive way, so I wrote a PEP. Nick wrote a
> > different PEP, since it was clear that it was possible to handle
> > security in two different incompatible ways. A mailing list was even
> > created just to discuss this bug! A mailing list just for a bug gives
> > an idea of the size of the mess :-)
> >
> > Well, about the change itself, it was done in
> > http://bugs.python.org/issue27776
> >
> > The patch was available for review during 19 days
> > (2016-08-18-2016-09-06) and was reviewed by Nick Coghlan. Since Nick
> > wrote a similar PEP, I trusted him to be able to review my change.
> > (Well, anyway I already trust all core developers, but I mean that I
> > was trusting him even more than usual :-))
> >
> > Since the change has a big impact on security, I had prefer to get a
> > review of more developers, especially our security experts... but as I
> > wrote, two security experts "rage- quitted". Again, this PEP has a
> > long and sad story :-/
> >
> > Note: you say that you are the maintainer of the random module, but I
> > don't recall having see you in any recent discussions and issues
> > related to os.urandom(), whereas a lot of enhancements and changes
> > were done last 2 years. I made many changes to support new OS
> > functions like getentropy() an getrandom().
> >
> >
> > Oooookay, let's see the second change, "this change to sorted()",
> > http://bugs.python.org/issue29327
> >
> > (2) I introduced a bug in sorted(), last August:
> > https://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/15eab21bf934/
> >
> > Calling sorted(iterable=[]) does crash. To be honest, I didn't imagine
> > that anyone would pass the iterable by keyword, but Serhiy is very
> > good to spot bugs in corner cases :-)
> >
> > IMHO the regression is subtle.
> >
> > When I optimized the code to use FASTCALL, I replaced
> > PyTuple_GetSlice(args, 1, argc) with &PyTuple_GET_ITEM(args, 1). I
> > checked that all tests passed, so it looks ok to me.
> >
> > I didn't imagine that anyone would call sorted(iterable=[]), so I
> > didn't notice that PyTuple_GetSlice() can create an empty tuple.
> >
> > The previous code was wrong since sorted() accepted iterable as a
> > keyword, whereas sort.list() doesn't.
> >
> > So well, I let you guess if a review would have spot this bug in the
> > large change.
> >
> >
> > (3) Recently, I ran sed to replace code patterns to use faster ways to
> > call functions:
> > https://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/54a89144ee1d
> >
> > "Replace PyObject_CallObject(callable, NULL) with
> > _PyObject_CallNoArg(callable)"
> >
> > I recalled that I modified the _decimal module and that Stefan Krah
> > complained, because he wants to have the same code base on Python 3.5,
> > 3.6 and 3.7. He also mentionned an external test suite which was
> > broken by recent _decimal changes (not sure if my specific change was
> > in cause or not), but I wasn't aware of it.
> >
> > To be honest, I didn't even notice that I modified _decimal when I ran
> > sed on all .c files. Since the change was straightforward and (IMHO)
> > made the code more readable, I didn't even wait for a review if I
> > recall correctly.
> >
> > Stefan and me handled this issue privately (he reverted my change),
> > I'm not sure that it's worth it to say more about this "issue" (or
> > even "non-issue").
> >
> > To be clear, I don't consider that my change introduced a regression.
> >
> >
> > > * In general, Guido has been opposed to sweeping changes across the code
> > base for only tiny benefits.  Of late, that rule seems to have been lost.
> > >
> > > * The benefits of FASTCALL mainly apply to fine grained functions which
> > only do a little work and tend to be called frequently in loops.  For
> > functions such as sorted(), the calling overhead is dominated by the cost
> > of actually doing the sort.  For sorted(), FASTCALL is truly irrelevant and
> > likely wasn't worth the complexity, or the actual bug, or any of the time
> > we've now put in it.  There was no actual problem being solved, just a
> > desire to broadly apply new optimizations.
> >
> > Ok, first, you qualify my FASTCALL changes as code churn. So let me
> > show an example with sorted():
> > https://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/b34d2ef5c412
> >
> > Can you elaborate how such change increases the complexity?
> >
> >
> > Second, "no actual problem being solved"
> >
> > Since the goal of FASTCALL is to optimize Python, I guess that you
> > consider that the speedup doesn't justify the change. I gave numbers
> > in the issue #29327:
> >
> > Microbenchmark on sorted() on Python 3.7 compared to 3.5 (before FASTCALL):
> > ---
> > haypo@smithers$ ./python -m perf timeit 'seq=list(range(10))'
> > 'sorted(seq)' --compare-to=../3.5/python -v
> > Median +- std dev: [3.5] 1.07 us +- 0.06 us -> [3.7] 958 ns +- 15 ns:
> > 1.12x faster (-11%)
> >
> > haypo@smithers$ ./python -m perf timeit 'seq=list(range(10)); k=lambda
> > x:x' 'sorted(seq, key=k)' --compare-to=../3.5/python -v
> > Median +- std dev: [3.5] 3.34 us +- 0.07 us -> [3.7] 2.66 us +- 0.05
> > us: 1.26x faster (-21%)
> > ---
> >
> > IMHO such speedup is significant even on a microbenchmark. Can you
> > elaborate what are your criteria to decide if an optimization is worth
> > it?
> >
> >
> >
> > > * Historically, we've relied on core developers showing restraint.  Not
> > every idea that pops into their head is immediately turned into a patch
> > accompanied by pressure to apply it.  Devs tended to restrict themselves to
> > parts of the code they knew best through long and careful study rather
> > sweeping through modules and altering other people's carefully crafted code.
> >
> > Should I understand that I should restrict myself to some files? Or
> > not touch some specific parts of Python, like... "your" code like
> > random, itertools and collections modules?
> >
> > I replied to the 3 issues you mentioned previously and explained how I
> > contribute to Python.
> >
> >
> > > * FWIW, I applaud your efforts to reduce call overhead -- that has long
> > been a sore spot for the language.
> > >
> > > * Guido has long opposed optimizations that increase risk of bugs,
> > introduce complexity, or that affect long-term maintainability.   In some
> > places, it looks like FASTCALL is increasing the complexity (replacing
> > something simple and well-understood with a wordier, more intricate API
> > that I don't yet fully understand and will affect my ability to maintain
> > the surrounding code).
> >
> > I'm sorry, I didn't spent much time on explaing the FASTCALL design
> > nor documenting my changes. It's partially deliberate to make
> > everything related to FASTCALL private. Since it's a huge project
> > modifying a lot of code, I wanted to wait until the APIs and the code
> > stop moving too fast to take time to explain my work and document it.
> >
> > If you have specific questions, please go ahead.
> >
> >
> > Shortest summary:
> >
> > * FASTCALL replaces (args: tuple, kwargs: optional dict) with (args: C
> > array, nargs: int, kwnames: tuple of keyword keys). It's a new calling
> > convention which allows to avoid a temporary tuple to pass positional
> > arguments and avoids temporary dictionary to pass keyworkd arguments.
> >
> > * To use FASTCALL, C functions should be converted to the new
> > METH_FASTCALL calling convention
> >
> > * PyObject_Call() can replaced with _PyObject_FastCallKeywords() or
> > _PyObject_FastCallDict() (when we still get kwargs as a dict) in such
> > conversion
> >
> > * Many existing C functions were optimized internally to use FASCALL,
> > so even if you don't modify your code, you will benefit of it
> > (speedup). Typical example: PyFunction_CallFunctionObjArgs().
> >
> >
> > The most massive change were purely internal and don't affect the most
> > famous C APIs at all. In some cases, to fully benefit of FASTCALL,
> > code should be modified. I'm trying to restrict such changes to Python
> > internals, especially the most used functions.
> >
> > I expected that the required changes were straightforward enough, it
> > looks like I was wrong, but I don't recall anyone, before you
> > recently, asking for an explanation.
> >
> >
> >
> > > * It was no long ago that you fought tooth-and-nail against a single
> > line patch optimization I submitted.  The code was clearly correct and had
> > a simple disassembly to prove its benefit.  Your opposition was based on
> > "it increases the complexity of the code, introduces a maintenance cost,
> > and increases the risk of bugs".  In the end, your opposition killed the
> > patch.  But now, the AC and FASTCALL patches don't seem to mind any of
> > these considerations.
> >
> > Context: http://bugs.python.org/issue26201
> >
> > It seems like we need more _explicit_ rules to decide if an
> > optimization is worth it or not. For me, the de facto standard request
> > for an optimization is to prove it with a benchmark. I requested a
> > benchmark, but you refused to provide it.
> >
> > So I ran my own benchmark and saw that your change made the modified
> > code (PyList_Append()) 6% slower. I'm not sure that my bencmark was
> > correct, but it was a first step to take a decision.
> >
> >
> > To come back to FASTCALL, your point is that it doesn't provide any
> > speedup.
> >
> > In most FASTCALL issues that I opened, I provide a script to reproduce
> > my benchmark and the benchmark results. The speedup is usually betwen
> > 10% and 20% faster.
> >
> > Should I understand that 6% slower is ok, whereas 10-20% faster is not
> > good? Can you please elaborate?
> >
> >
> > > * AC is supposed to be a CPython-only concept.  But along the way APIs
> > are being changed without discussion.  I don't mind that sorted() now
> > exposes *iterable* as a keyword argument, but it was originally left out on
> > purpose (Tim opined that code would look worse with iterable as a keyword
> > argument).  That decision was reversed unilaterally without consulting the
> > author and without a test.  Also as AC is being applied, the variable names
> > are being changed.  I never really liked the "mp" that used in dicts and
> > prefer the use of "self" better, but it is a gratuitous change that
> > unilaterally reverses the decisions of the authors and makes the code not
> > match any of the surrounding code that uses the prior conventions.
> >
> > Ah, at least I concur with you on one point :-) Changes to convert
> > functions to AC must not change the API (type of arguments: positional
> > only/keyword/..., default values, etc.) nor provide a worse docstring.
> >
> > There is an active on-going work to enhance AC to fix issues that you
> > reported, like the default value of positional-only parameters which
> > should not be rendered in the function signature (I created the issue
> > #29299 with a patch). Serhiy is also working on implementing the last
> > major missing feature of AC: support *args and **kwargs parameters
> > (issue #20291).
> >
> > FYI I wasn't involved in AC changes, I only started to look at AC
> > recently (1 or 2 months ago). Again, I agree that these changes should
> > be carefully reviewed, which is an hard task since required changes
> > are usually large and move a lot of code. We need more eyes to look at
> > these changes!
> >
> > For the specific case of sorted(), the name of first parameter is
> > already documented in the docstring and documentation in Python 2.7:
> > "iterable". So I guess that you mean that it is now possible to use it
> > as a keyword argument. Well, see the issue #29327 for the long story.
> > This issue is a regression, it was already fixed, and I didn't
> > introduce the API change.
> >
> >
> > Oh by the way, when I read your comment, I understand that I'm
> > responsible of all regressions. It's true that I introduced
> > regressions, that's where I said "shit happens" (or more politically
> > correct: "it's better to ask forgiveness than permission" ;-)). Since
> > I'm one of the most active contributor in CPython, I'm not surprised
> > of being the one who introduce many (most?) regressions :-) I'm trying
> > to review my changes multiple times, test corner cases, etc. But I'm
> > not perfect.
> >
> > Sadly, to show its full power, FASTCALL requires changes at many
> > levels of the code. It requires to change at lot of code, but I
> > understood that core developers approved the whole project. Maybe I
> > was wrong? At least, I asked for permissions multiple changes,
> > especially at the start.
> >
> >
> >
> > > * FWIW, the claim that the help is much better is specious.  AFAICT,
> > there has never been the slightest problem with "sorted(iterable, key=None,
> > reverse=False) --> new sorted list" which has been clear since the day it
> > was released.   It is some of the new strings the are causing problems with
> > users (my students frequently are tripped-up by the / notation for example;
> > no one seems to be able to intuit what it means without it being explained
> > first).
> >
> > Good news, it seems like you have a good experience in API design,
> > documentation, etc. Join the "Argument Clinic" project to help us to
> > enhance docstrings, function signatures and documentation ;-)
> >
> > See the good part of the AC on-going work: it's a nice opportunity to
> > also enhance documentation, not only provide a signature.
> >
> > By the way, to be honest, the main advantage of converting functions
> > to AC is to get a signature. The signature is visible in docstrings
> > which is nice, but it is also very useful to a wide range of tools
> > like (IDE, static checks, etc.).
> >
> > Conversion to FASTCALL is more a nice effect. At least, it is a good
> > motivation for me to convert mor and more code to AC :-)
> >
> > AC moves docstring closer to the list of parameters. IHMO it makes the
> > C code simpler to read and understand. It also removes the boring code
> > responsible to "parse" arguments, so it makes the code shorter. But
> > well, this is just my opinion.
> >
> >
> > > * FWIW, I'm trying to be constructive and contribute where I can, but
> > frankly I can't keep up with the volume of churn.   Having seen bugs being
> > introduced, it is not inappropriate to ask another dev to please be
> > careful, especially when that dev has been prolific to an unprecedented
> > degree and altering core parts of the language for function calls, to new
> > opcodes, the memory allocators, etc.  Very few people on the planet are
> > competent to review these changes, make reasonable assessments about
> > whether the complexity and churn are worth it.  An fewer still have the
> > time to keep up with the volume of changes.
> >
> >
> > Hum, I wasn't involved in bytecode changes.
> >
> > Well, I reviewed the very good work of Demur Rumed. I recall that you
> > worked on a similar area, trying to fetch bytecode by 16-bit instead
> > of 8-bit. Demur proposed a good design and I recall that the design
> > was approved.
> >
> > I helped a little bit on the implementation and I pushed the final
> > change, but all credits go to Demur and Serhiy Storshaka! By the way,
> > Serhiy made further efficient enhancements in the bytecode of
> > CALL_FUNCTION instructions.
> >
> >
> > About memory allocations, I guess that you are referring to my change
> > on PyMem_Malloc() allocator. I discussed the issue on python-dev and
> > waited for approval of my peers before pushing anything, since I know
> > well that it's a critical part of Python:
> > https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2016-March/143467.html
> >
> > I provide all data requested by Marc Andre Lemburg (test the change
> > with common projects, Django, Pillow, numpy) and made further changes
> > (PYTHONMALLOC=debug tool) to help to handle this backward incompatible
> > change (GIL is now required to call PyMem_Malloc).
> >
> > Hopefully, it seems like nobody noticed this subtle change (GIL now
> > requied): I didn't see any bug report. By the way, I fixed a misused
> > PyMem_Mem() in numpy.
> >
> >
> > > * Please do continue your efforts to improve the language, but also
> > please moderate the rate of change, mitigate the addition complexity, value
> > stability over micro-optimizations, consult the authors and maintainers of
> > code, take special care without code that hasn't been reviewed because that
> > lacks a safety net, and remember that newer devs may be taking cues from
> > you (do you want them making extensive changes to long existing stable code
> > without consulting the authors and with weak LGTM reviews?)
> >
> > Ok, I will do it.
> >
> > Thank you for you feedback Raymond. I hope that my email helps you to
> > understand how I work and how I take my decisions.
> >
> > Victor
> > _______________________________________________
> > python-committers mailing list
> > python-committers@python.org
> > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers
> > Code of Conduct: https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
> >
_______________________________________________
python-committers mailing list
python-committers@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers
Code of Conduct: https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct/