"M.-A. Lemburg" <mal@lemburg.com> writes:
I haven't seen any messages about this on python-dev. Did I miss something ?
No. For a change like this, I did not think consultation was necessary.
The switch from Unicode 3.0 is a big one since 3.2 introduces non-BMP character points for the first time.
I disagree; it's a small change. Just look at the patch itself: apart from the (considerably large) generated data, there were very few actual changes to source code: Changing a few limits was sufficient. Since there are no backwards compatibility issues, and no design choices (apart from the choice of updating the database at all), this is a straight-forward change.
I also don't think that it is a good idea to ship the Unicode 3.2 database while the code behaves as defined in Unicode 3.0.
Can you please elaborate? What code behaves as defined in Unicode 3.0 that is incompatible with the Unicode 3.2 database?
And last not least, I'd like to be asked before you make such changes.
I find this quite a possessive view, and I would prefer if you bring up technical arguments instead of procedural ones, but ok... I was under the impression that I can apply my own professional judgement when deciding what patches to apply without consultation, in what cases to ask on python-dev, and when to submit a patch to SF. Apparently, this impression is wrong. Can you please give precise instructions what constitutes "such a change"? Also, should I back this change out? Regards, Martin