[Python-Dev] [Python-checkins] r45321 - in python/trunk: Lib/test/test_traceback.py Lib/traceback.py Misc/NEWS (original) (raw)
Guido van Rossum guido at python.org
Fri Apr 14 09:46:31 CEST 2006
- Previous message: [Python-Dev] [Python-checkins] r45321 - in python/trunk: Lib/test/test_traceback.py Lib/traceback.py Misc/NEWS
- Next message: [Python-Dev] [Python-checkins] r45321 - in python/trunk: Lib/test/test_traceback.py Lib/traceback.py Misc/NEWS
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
On 4/14/06, Anthony Baxter <anthony at interlink.com.au> wrote:
On Friday 14 April 2006 02:31, Martin v. Löwis wrote: > Tim Peters wrote: > >> I'm not the one to decide, but at some time the traceback module > >> should be rewritten to match the interpreter behavior. > > > > No argument from me about that. > > I also think the traceback module should be corrected, and the test > cases updated, despite the objections that it may break other > people's doctest test cases.
Let me chime in with agreement (2.5 only of course).
I don't mind one way or the other, but with the number of people working actively on the code at the moment, I think reverting broken patches that don't have trivial test fixes is the way to go. The buildbot system is useless, otherwise.
That was the right thing to do (short of fixing all the missing tests, which requires actual thinking :-).
-- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
- Previous message: [Python-Dev] [Python-checkins] r45321 - in python/trunk: Lib/test/test_traceback.py Lib/traceback.py Misc/NEWS
- Next message: [Python-Dev] [Python-checkins] r45321 - in python/trunk: Lib/test/test_traceback.py Lib/traceback.py Misc/NEWS
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]