On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 5:13 AM, Itamar Turner-Trauring <itamar@itamarst.org
wrote:
On 05/27/2016 04:19 AM, Craig Rodrigues wrote:
I think they're fine to accept insofar as:
1. There is strong ongoing momentum for the port now, so these changes makes porting module-by-module easier and won't just bitrot. 2. They're doing one particular incompatibility at a time, rather than "here's an assortment of random changes to a module that may or may not port that module fully, who knows."
I don't think they are sufficient to port a module (someone needs to read the code and think a bit, usually), but they will make it easier to do so, so they definitely are worth continuing.
Thanks! You have summarized exactly the strategy I have been using when submitting these patches. At Pycon, Glyph and cyli managed to review and merge a number of my patches. Do you have any bandwidth to review some of the print -> print() changes I did? They are here: http://bit.ly/24r2fuJ Thanks. -- Craig