On Feb 9, 3:54 am, George Sakkis <george.sak...@gmail.com> wrote: > I was talking to a colleague about one rather unexpected/undesired > (though not buggy) behavior of some package we use. Although there is > an easy fix (or at least workaround) on our end without any apparent > side effect, he strongly suggested extending the relevant code by hard > patching it and posting the patch upstream, hopefully to be accepted > at some point in the future. In fact we maintain patches against > specific versions of several packages that are applied automatically > on each new build. The main argument is that this is the right thing > to do, as opposed to an "ugly" workaround or a fragile monkey patch. > On the other hand, I favor practicality over purity and my general > rule of thumb is that "no patch" > "monkey patch" > "hard patch", at > least for anything less than a (critical) bug fix.
I'd monkey patch for the meantime, but send a hard patch in the hopes of shifting the maintenance burden to someone else. (Plus maybe help out the upstream project and other people, I guess) -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
