On 6/10/2010 2:48 AM, Senthil Kumaran wrote:
On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 6:40 AM, Alexandre Vassalotti
<alexan...@peadrop.com> wrote:
On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 1:23 PM, "Martin v. Löwis"<mar...@v.loewis.de> wrote:
Closing the backport requests is fine. For the feature requests, I'd only
close them *after* the 2.7 release (after determining that they won't apply
to 3.x, of course).
There aren't that many backport requests, anyway, are there?
There is only a few requests (about five)
I get your point. It is the 'back-ports' that you have tagged.
Right, things already in 3.x.
> These
were designed for 3.x and implemented in 3.x in the first place.
I was concerned that there will be policy drawn or a practice that
will close any/every existing Feature Request in Python 2.7.
There are some cases (in stdlib) which can debated on the lines of
feature request vs bug-fix and those will get hurt in the process.
I have started going through old open issues tagged with 2.5. Many are
unclassified. Those that are feature requests that are *plausible* for
3.2 I am marking as such and retagging for 3.2, *not* closing. (I am
also marking bug reports as such and asking the OP to test in 2.6/7 and
maybe 3.1 if I cannot easily do so.)
Ideally, all core/stdlib feature requests should be classified as such
and tagged for 3.2 or even 3.3) only.
Terry Jan Reedy
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
