Alexander Belopolsky wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 10:03 AM, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
>> Alexander Belopolsky wrote:
> ..
>>> The ticket that introduced the change is
>>> currently closed [3] even though the last message suggests that at
>>> least part of the change needs to be reverted.
>>
>> That
On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 10:03 AM, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
> Alexander Belopolsky wrote:
..
>> The ticket that introduced the change is
>> currently closed [3] even though the last message suggests that at
>> least part of the change needs to be reverted.
>
> That's for Guido to decide.
>
The decision
Michael Foord wrote:
> On 09/12/2010 15:03, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
>> Alexander Belopolsky wrote:
>>> On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 1:05 PM, Guido van Rossum
>>> wrote:
On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 9:58 AM, R. David
Murray wrote:
>>> ..
> I believe MAL's thought was that the addition of these me
On 09/12/2010 15:03, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
Alexander Belopolsky wrote:
On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 1:05 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 9:58 AM, R. David Murray wrote:
..
I believe MAL's thought was that the addition of these methods had
been approved pre-moratorium, but I don'
Alexander Belopolsky wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 1:05 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>> On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 9:58 AM, R. David Murray
>> wrote:
> ..
>>> I believe MAL's thought was that the addition of these methods had
>>> been approved pre-moratorium, but I don't know if that is a
>>> suff
On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 1:05 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 9:58 AM, R. David Murray wrote:
..
>> I believe MAL's thought was that the addition of these methods had
>> been approved pre-moratorium, but I don't know if that is a
>> sufficient argument or not.
>
> It is not.
>
