Ed Leafe wrote: > On May 9, 2007, at 10:28 AM, Paul McNett wrote: > >> I considered it a bugfix, as it fixed it so that those settings are >> usable. > > I guess I don't understand what 'stable' means then. The code is > brand-new, and relatively untested compared to the rest. Method > signatures were changed, and a new property introduced. > > OTOH, there was no 'bug'. The settings were perfectly usable, as > they were meant to be set from within the bizobj code itself, instead > of from the outside. Now those settings are open and available to > outside code, which introduces new behaviors and thus potential new > problems.
I made an exception because it sounded like you wanted it included in 0.8. You said yourself that you were confident about the changes. If it's good enough for 0.8 it should be good enough for 0.8.1, no? There *was* a bug, in that user code had no real way to tweak those behaviors (how does their subclass change __ methods without knowing how to reference them?), and there was therefore a bug in the docstring because those __ attributes aren't accessible. I think it can be considered a bugfix or a new feature; I chose the former to get it into the 0.8 branch, but I could care less either way. Go ahead and revert [3116] if you prefer. -- pkm ~ http://paulmcnett.com _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/dabo-dev Searchable Archives: http://leafe.com/archives/search/dabo-dev This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/dabo-dev/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
