Tino Lange <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > R. Bernstein wrote: > To summarize, I think most of us readers here like your changes or at least > didn't shout loud enough against it ;-)
Okay. I'll gladly accept whatever positive interpretation someone wants to offer. :-) > As I also would like to have a more powerful and gdb-like debugging facility > in out-of-the-box python, I think it would be the best strategy to make a > consolidated patch now, send it to sf Umm.. If you read the original post, I already *had* submitted a patch. About two weeks ago. There is no evidence that it's been looked at. But that's often the way things happen with large projects, volunteers, and/or minimal resources. My custom which I think is shared by many other programmers is to submit a smallish patch, and see how that goes. If it is received well, then others follow if not, then not. In the two weeks of nonaction of that patch, I've gone much further at least to my satisfaction, by working on my own. (Actually if you look closely you'll see that I made 3 revisions of the patch. And there still was a small bug that I've fixed recently in releasing the pydb package.) > and to post a note about that on > python-dev@python.org to get the "board's approval" :-) Hmmm. You seem to understand this side of things far better newbe me. Hey, how about if you do that? Thanks! > > "idle" also changed dramatically during the last versions - why shouldn't > pdb also become better ... a volunteer seems to be there ;-) > > Thanks for your effort and cheers, And thanks for your effort and cheers! -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
