Terry J. Reedy added the comment: You might add a brief description of why this is good idea, or link to such a discussion.
I am +1 on the idea, but a pydev discussion might be needed. How did you test the patch? I don't think that passing the same tests in non-verbose mode is good enough, as an empty test is a pass. What would be convincing is an automated comparison of verbose output before and after that showed that everything run before is run after. There might be more after if something was omitted from a run_unittest call. That past actuality and current possibility is part of the reason for the change. Timing: I think applying this too close to a release might be a bad idea. I am thinking more of human mental adjustments (and the need to refresh some patches) rather than likely technical issues. If this were approved when 3.4.2 were expected within a month, say, I would wait until it were released. ---------- nosy: +terry.reedy _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue21741> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
