2013/6/23 Alexander Belopolsky <alexander.belopol...@gmail.com>: > > On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 11:37 PM, Raymond Hettinger > <raymond.hettin...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> As far as I can tell, none >> of the participants in this thread has ever previously shown any interest >> in the deque object. It is discouraging to have a simple parameter >> change and struct reordering reverted. This thread has offered zero >> support or encouragement for my work. The python-dev >> social environment appears to be degrading over time. > > > FWIW, I was surprised to see Raymond's patch reverted in what looked like a > knee-jerk reaction. In my view Raymond through his contributions has earned > the presumption of validity for his commits. A risk of introducing > regressions may ultimately outweigh the benefit of optimization and keeping > 2.x and 3.x code in sync, but there is no need in rushing the decision. > This patch could be reverted at any time before the 2.7.6 release which as > far as I know has not even been scheduled.
The first concern about 5accb0ac8bfb was raised more than a week ago and more piled up over the course of the week. I knew Raymond wasn't offline, since he continued to commit. Since we don't have mandatory reviews before push (which more and more I think we should), post-facto reviews on python-checkins need to be acknowledged. A backout is not the end of the world; it takes seconds to reland once a conclusion has been reached. This incident should not be construed to diminish Raymond's long history of contribution or his technical ability. My second reversion (86d512e0ec66) was knee-jerk and shouldn't have happened. -- Regards, Benjamin _______________________________________________ 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