[Python-Dev] How far to go with user-friendliness
ncoghlan at gmail.com
Sat Jul 18 05:19:06 CEST 2015
On 18 Jul 2015 10:40 am, "Ben Finney" <ben+python at benfinney.id.au> wrote:
> Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan at gmail.com> writes:
> > On 17 July 2015 at 08:30, Ben Finney <ben+python at benfinney.id.au> wrote:
> > > By definition, advocating to not add cruft to an API is going to be in
> > > advance of being bitten by those additions.
> > That's not what people are doing. Folks are actually arguing for
> > *restoring* the ability to mock out method names starting with
> > "assret_*".
> You're describing a fait accompli. That doesn't justify the changes to
> get to that fait.
NOTHING new has been added by this discussion - it is merely rehashing
arguments that were already considered when the original design decision
was made. Attempting to get our way through sheer volume is not acceptable
Courtesy attempts to explain have been met with endless nitpicking rather
than gratitude for explanation of the original decision.
I'm with Antoine in wondering why we even bother with contributing when the
thanks we can expect is for people to feel entitled to demand we spend
hours of our time debating trivial details while huge glaring problems like
the startup sequence and the core workflow tooling languish for lack of
time to work on them.
This change *doesn't really matter* in the grand scheme things, but would
require a non-zero amount of time and effort to reverse, so unless you're
offering one of the unittest maintainers a contract gig to change it back,
let it go.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Python-Dev