R. David Murray <rdmur...@bitdance.com> added the comment: Actually our normal procedure currently (this will change a bit after the migration to mercurial) is a patch against the py3k branch, and the committer will do the backport to the other active branches. If the 2.7 code is very different, a separate 2.7 patch is sometimes helpful. In this case it looks like a patch that applies to py3k is enough.
Alan hasn't spoken up yet, and he's listed as maintainer. If he doesn't speak up someone else will hopefully make a decision before the end of the beta period for 3.2. I'm bumping up the priority of this issue because I think not being able to handle commonly produced archives that other zip tools can handle is a relatively serious defect. My own opinion is that truncation if the extra data doesn't look like a comment makes the most sense. But absent an opinion from Alan I think I'd be guided by whatever other zip tools do in this case. Kevin, am I correct in guessing that that is truncation? Ned is definitely correct that absence of a test case is something that can delay getting a patch applied. If a patch includes a unit test, a committer can often do a quick review-and-apply, while absent a unit test the committer would first need to write one, and therefore will often move on to some other, easier to process issue :) In this case it seems to me that the unit test will only differ in one detail depending on the fix chosen, so it may be worth writing it even before a final decision is made, if you are willing. ---------- nosy: +r.david.murray priority: normal -> high stage: needs patch -> unit test needed _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue10694> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
