bpo-29557: Remove abiguous line in binhex docs #90
Conversation
"appears to not work in all cases" does not inspire confidence in this module. I can find no context for what bug this was referencing so it should be removed.
|
There was a bug fixed in the I see no other open issues for binhex in the issue tracker so I believe this line should be removed until we have a concrete bug report that can be referenced by the documentation. |
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #90 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 82.38% 82.38% +<.01%
==========================================
Files 1428 1428
Lines 351138 351138
==========================================
+ Hits 289282 289292 +10
+ Misses 61856 61846 -10Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks for the PR! I think your analysis looks correct. However, it would be nice to record your research on bugs.python.org. Also, we can get more feedback from other core developers since not all of them subscribe to the GitHub repository.
See also step 5 at http://cpython-devguide.readthedocs.io/#quick-start
|
Sure, I wasn't sure where to draw the line for a trivial issue so didn't create a bug up front. I've created one now: http://bugs.python.org/issue29557 |
|
@davidwilemski Could you please add your GitHub username to your bpo profile? |
|
Sure, done. |
|
Thanks! |
"appears to not work in all cases" does not inspire confidence in this module. I can find no context for what bug this was referencing so it should be removed. (cherry picked from commit 6de2b78)
"appears to not work in all cases" does not inspire confidence in this module. I can find no context for what bug this was referencing so it should be removed. (cherry picked from commit 6de2b78)
…ets. Unbinding (tasklet.bind(None) ) of main tasklets caused an assertion violation. Now it raises RuntimError. https://bitbucket.org/stackless-dev/stackless/issues/90 (grafted from 58b930a8a1d931da2f5bc834681af5d1452e1733 and 46335aa61c7c)
Update the readme indicating that the PR will be assigned to the core dev for follow up.
"appears to not work in all cases" does not inspire confidence in this
module. I can find no context for what bug this was referencing so it
should be removed.
It appears this comment was from the original documentation for this function in 1995 but the commit also does not include any context regarding a bug: https://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/3911d4a89ab0#l4.40