[Python-checkins] r43408 - in python/trunk: Lib/test/test_urllib2.py Lib/urllib.py Lib/urllib2.py Misc/NEWS

[Guido van Rossum]

On 3/29/06, Georg Brandl <g.brandl at gmx.net> wrote:
> Guido van Rossum wrote:
> > I didn't ask for it to be reverted -- I just asked why bother.
> >
> > On 3/28/06, Anthony Baxter <anthony at interlink.com.au> wrote:
> >> On Wednesday 29 March 2006 06:19, georg.brandl wrote:
> >> > Author: georg.brandl
> >> > Date: Tue Mar 28 21:19:56 2006
> >> > New Revision: 43408
> >> >
> >> > Modified:
> >> >    python/trunk/Lib/test/test_urllib2.py
> >> >    python/trunk/Lib/urllib.py
> >> >    python/trunk/Lib/urllib2.py
> >> >    python/trunk/Misc/NEWS
> >> > Log:
> >> > Revert r43399.
> >>
> >> checkin arguments are no fun, I know, but... we should be as
> >> RFC-compliant as possible. RFC 793: "be conservative in what you do,
> >> be liberal in what you accept from others"
>
> Now I'm confused.
>
> I might have misunderstood """Sigh. I vote for applying evolution and letting
> those servers get what they deserve for lacking standard compliance..."""...
>
> Please tell me what to do ;-)

I was merely expressing the sentiment that in *my* days I would have
rejected the bug report, and I don't think that the effort in
preparing the patch was time well spent. But since it was already
spent, and not harmful in any way, reverting it wasn't my intention.
Now that it's been reverted, I don't think it ought to be resurrected.
But if you feel strongly about the patch, do whatever you want to do.

Next time, don't revert a patch so quickly! I apologize for being unclear.

--
--Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)