It was closed by one or two individuals, and there has been significant comment since then. Asking to revisit a decision isn't crazy, and there have been reasonable suggestions made. I don't see a lack of core dev "jumping upon" as an active indication that patches would be rejected; merely that core devs are unlikely to produce such a patch themselves.
On 05/03/2014 18:26, Amber Yust wrote:
Where did you see an indication that a patch would not be accepted?
On Mar 5, 2014 10:24 AM, "Mark Lawrence"
<breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk
<mailto:breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk>> wrote:
On 05/03/2014 18:12, Amber Yust wrote:
I think this is the wrong stage to evaluate cost. After all, one
of the
tenets of open source is that the core devs don't have to be the
source
of all change.
But the core devs have to review the change and ultimately decide
whether or not to commit it. In this case it looks as if a patch
would not be accepted, so why keep going on about it, especially
when there's a known work around?
--
My fellow Pythonistas, ask not what our language can do for you, ask
what you can do for our language.
Mark Lawrence
---
http://bugs.python.org/issue13936 has been closed as invalid and I don't see a rush of core devs backing this proposal.
--
My fellow Pythonistas, ask not what our language can do for you, ask what you can do for our language.
Mark Lawrence
---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com
_______________________________________________
Python-ideas mailing list
Python-ideas@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/