(original) (raw)

On 25 August 2013 00:26, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 25 August 2013 00:13, Antoine Pitrou <solipsis@pitrou.net> wrote:

>> On Sun, 25 Aug 2013 00:03:01 +1000

>> Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan@gmail.com> wrote:

>>> If Stefan's "please revert this" as lxml.etree maintainer isn't

>>> enough, then I'm happy to add a "please revert this" as a core

>>> committer that is confused about how and when the new tulip-inspired

>>> incremental parsing API should be used in preference to the existing

>>> incremental parsing API, and believes this needs to be clearly

>>> resolved before adding a second way to do it

>>> (especially if there's a

>>> possibility of using a different implementation strategy that avoids

>>> adding the second way).

>>

>> To be clear, again: anyone who wants to "see it resolved" can take over

>> the issue and handle it by themselves. I'm done with it.

>

> OK, I'll revert it for now, then. If someone else steps up to resolve

> the API duplication problem, cool, otherwise we can continue to live

> without this as a standard library feature.

On the other hand... because other changes have been made to the
module since the original commit, a simple "hg backout" is no longer
possible :(

Stefan - if you'd like this reverted, you're going to have to either
make the alternative solution work correctly, or else craft the commit
to undo the API addition.

However, I have at least reopened http://bugs.python.org/issue17741