On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 2:42 AM, Michael Foord
wrote:
>>>
>>> Given how high traffic python-checkins is I don't consider that a
>>> reasonable place to send follow-up and nor do I consider it the
>>> responsibility of committers to monitor it. As you said earlier this
>>> *isn't* in our standard d
On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 5:22 AM, Brett Cannon wrote:
> Actually, I probably wouldn't. =) When it gets to explicit code, a design
> decision has been made, so I do not need to worry about involving the
> general public in some low-level technical discussion that won't impact
> them.
Yep, that's my
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 01:36, Eric Smith wrote:
> On 7/14/2010 4:21 AM, Georg Brandl wrote:
>
>> Am 13.07.2010 22:29, schrieb Brett Cannon:
>>
>> Given how high traffic python-checkins is I don't consider
>>> that a
>>> reasonable place to send follow-up and nor do I con
On 7/14/2010 4:21 AM, Georg Brandl wrote:
Am 13.07.2010 22:29, schrieb Brett Cannon:
Given how high traffic python-checkins is I don't consider that a
reasonable place to send follow-up and nor do I consider it the
responsibility of committers to monitor i
Am 13.07.2010 22:29, schrieb Brett Cannon:
> Given how high traffic python-checkins is I don't consider that a
> reasonable place to send follow-up and nor do I consider it the
> responsibility of committers to monitor it. As you said earlier
> this
>
On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 16:42, Michael Foord wrote:
> On 12/07/2010 23:48, Eric Smith wrote:
>
>> On 7/12/2010 6:04 PM, Michael Foord wrote:
>>
>>> Given how high traffic python-checkins is I don't consider that a
>>> reasonable place to send follow-up and nor do I consider it the
>>> responsibili
On 12/07/2010 23:48, Eric Smith wrote:
On 7/12/2010 6:04 PM, Michael Foord wrote:
Given how high traffic python-checkins is I don't consider that a
reasonable place to send follow-up and nor do I consider it the
responsibility of committers to monitor it. As you said earlier this
*isn't* in our
