Message 346067 - Python tracker

➜

This issue tracker has been migrated to GitHub, and is currently read-only.
For more information, see the GitHub FAQs in the Python's Developer Guide.

Author	jdemeyer
Recipients	jdemeyer, ncoghlan, petr.viktorin, scoder, steve.dower, vstinner
Date	2019-06-19.18:02:45
SpamBayes Score	-1.0
Marked as misclassified	Yes
Message-id	<[email protected]>
In-reply-to

Content
> If we should put in the workaround for 3.8, how does that make it okay to remove in 3.9? I can easily change my PR to keep it in 3.9, no problem. Nick, what do you think? > put the new field at the end and leave the deprecated one exactly as it was. Can you give a least an argument of why that's better than putting back tp_print at the end? I gave 3 why that's NOT a good idea: msg345357

> If we should put in the workaround for 3.8, how does that make it okay to remove in 3.9?

I can easily change my PR to keep it in 3.9, no problem. Nick, what do you think?

> put the new field at the end and leave the deprecated one exactly as it was.

Can you give a least an argument of why that's better than putting back tp_print at the end? I gave 3 why that's NOT a good idea: msg345357

History
Date	User	Action	Args
2019-06-19 18:02:45	jdemeyer	set	recipients: + jdemeyer, ncoghlan, scoder, vstinner, petr.viktorin, steve.dower
2019-06-19 18:02:45	jdemeyer	set	messageid: <[email protected]>
2019-06-19 18:02:45	jdemeyer	link	issue37250 messages
2019-06-19 18:02:45	jdemeyer	create