original ) (raw )Created on 2019-05-21 14:53 by jdemeyer , last changed 2022-04-11 14:59 by admin . This issue is now closed .
Pull Requests
URL
Status
Linked
Edit
PR 13464 open
jdemeyer,2019-05-21 15:16
Messages (4)
msg343061 - (view) Author: Jeroen Demeyer (jdemeyer) *
Date: 2019-05-21 14:53
If PEP 590 is accepted: in code comments, replace tp_print by tp_vectorcall_offset and (while we're at it) tp_reserved by tp_as_async.
msg343065 - (view) Author: Petr Viktorin (petr.viktorin) *
Date: 2019-05-21 14:59
All these issues are quite confusing. If PEP 590 is accepted, all of it will need to be implemented. Why open separate issues for all the parts?
msg343071 - (view) Author: Pablo Galindo Salgado (pablogsal) *
Date: 2019-05-21 16:32
I would suggest centralizing all PRs on the same issue as Petr is indicating to reduce the noise, especially before the PEP is accepted.
msg343147 - (view) Author: Jeroen Demeyer (jdemeyer) *
Date: 2019-05-22 05:14
I see what you mean now. One bpo issue with many pull requests. I was following the CPython policy that every pull request needed an issue, but it didn't occur to me to put multiple independent PRs on one issue.
History
Date
User
Action
Args
2022-04-11 14:59:15
admin
set
github: 81176
2019-05-22 05:14:28
jdemeyer
set
status: open -> closedresolution: duplicatemessages: + stage: patch review -> resolved
2019-05-21 16:32:50
pablogsal
set
nosy: + pablogsal messages: +
2019-05-21 15:16:46
jdemeyer
set
keywords: + patch stage: patch reviewpull_requests: + <pull%5Frequest13375>
2019-05-21 14:59:49
petr.viktorin
set
messages: +
2019-05-21 14:53:24
jdemeyer
create
