> On Nov 4, 2014, at 7:44 PM, Itamar Turner-Trauring
> wrote:
>
> On 2014-11-03 23:10, Glyph wrote:
>
>> In favor again of reverting is the fact that no code outside
>> twisted.python.logger or twisted.python.log has been modified to take
>> advantage of the new system, so we're not going to
On 2014-11-03 23:10, Glyph wrote:
> In favor again of reverting is the fact that no code outside
> twisted.python.logger or twisted.python.log has been modified to take
> advantage of the new system, so we're not going to be breaking any
> dependencies on trunk.
Except for the fact that Tw
On 4 Nov 2014, at 18:07, Glyph wrote:
>
>> On Nov 4, 2014, at 10:38 AM, HawkOwl wrote:
>>
>>> • Can please we do reviews of the fixes to the regressions as if they
>>> were landing on trunk, and not have this revert re-open the need to review
>>> the entire (rather large) change?
>>
>>
> On Nov 4, 2014, at 10:38 AM, HawkOwl wrote:
>
>> • Can please we do reviews of the fixes to the regressions as if they
>> were landing on trunk, and not have this revert re-open the need to review
>> the entire (rather large) change?
>
> How are we going to manage this? Do we need an “
On 4 Nov 2014, at 12:10, Glyph wrote:
>
> On the gripping hand, many of these regressions have been outstanding for
> months, and so if we could get these fixed promptly enough, presumably we
> would have done that already.
This is mainly why I am in favour of this plan. They’re not small fix
