Threads like these are meaningless, does not provide any learning
value and is nowhere near the single vs double quote thread.

It opens the gap for people who are not concerned about development
jump in the game shifting the focus away while nurturing a culture of thrash
I mean you tend to ignore threads from python-dev and python-ideas which 
is not probably why you subscribed in the first place

This is not the first time i am saying that you can fly around the world on official
Python mailing lists. But it's regrettable that it's the first time i am seeing people
telling that they should educate others and things like that. It can be based on the
argument and circle around it but personal attacks are off limit

If this was a Github issue, i don't think you list moderators would have dragged it
around that much. Worst case scenario, someone would have been pinged and 
the issue taken care of. A PR or closing and you are done.

I raised the issue of closing a mail thread before and the impractical nature of 
it was discussed but maybe warnings and continued posting after the warning
results in ban can be enforced

And it's annoying that it got dragged to two mailing lists. I respect Python people
and i am always eager to follow some C code discussions, deprecating this C API
etc. It's a new world for me.

Maybe active list members should sign a convention or a vetting process can be setup
before we can discuss it on the lists. Not ideal but might be useful.

Kind Regards,

Abdur-Rahmaan Janhangeer

On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 8:11 PM David Mertz <> wrote:
The commit message is simply silly. It introduces numerous contentious and false claims that have nothing whatsoever to do with the small wording change. It misunderstands how language, culture, history, and indeed white supremacism, work.

I would recommend amending the commit message.

The underlying change itself is reasonable, and to my mind a small improvement. There was unnecessary specificity in using Strunk and White as reference, and not, say, William Zinsser's _On Writing Well_, which is almost as well known. In the concrete, it would be exceedingly rare for these to provide conflicting advice on a specific code comment.

On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 7:34 AM Richard Damon <> wrote:
On 6/29/20 6:22 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> and describes the
> old text as a "relic", which is another way of saying that the
> problems were only there by historical accident, rather than by anyone
> intentionally keeping it there.

I would say that say that I have seen the term "relic" being used as a
'weaponized' word to imply that the old thing WAS there intentionally as
a repressive measure. I am not saying that this usage was intended to be
used that way, but just as the old wording was taken as offensive to
some due to implication, I can see that message as offensive to others
due to implication, all because some people are easy to offend.

Richard Damon
Python-Dev mailing list --
To unsubscribe send an email to
Message archived at
Code of Conduct:

The dead increasingly dominate and strangle both the living and the
not-yet born.  Vampiric capital and undead corporate persons abuse
the lives and control the thoughts of homo faber. Ideas, once born,
become abortifacients against new conceptions.
Python-Dev mailing list --
To unsubscribe send an email to
Message archived at
Code of Conduct: