Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 8 years ago
Thanks for your comment. Could I ask you in future to post such things to the
issue tracker please? It means that everyone can see it, and we can give the
idea the attention it needs, rather than being buried so that only the
committer knows it exists.
In answer to your confusion, this patch was to replace existing exceptions that
were being thrown, and to get it in before the 2.1 code-freeze it needed to be
a straight-forward replacement.
If you don't understand the reasoning behind a commit, it may be better to ask,
rather than making assumptions and assertions as you have here. It's rather
poor issue tracker etiquette, since they could easily be misread as arrogance
at knowing better than the committing developer, when in fact you may simply
not be aware of the reasoning.
Unfortunately your suggestion came a little after the commit for issue 243 was
closed, and hence the new issue. However, if you'd like to get this fixed more
quickly, do please develop a patch indicating where you think NoneObjects
should be used, and we can get it included in the next release.
Original comment by mike.auty@gmail.com
on 8 Jul 2012 at 9:13
This sounds a bit rude dont you think? This is not a suggestion or an
idea but it is a question about a issue I spotted in the commit log
while reviewing it - hence I did ask in the first obvious spot I saw
(just under the commit log). As per your request I did repost to the
issue tracker.
If the project policy is not to use the feature of commenting against
the commit logs than I am happy to never do this again and use the
issue tracker exclusively. I was just not aware of this policy.
I am just hoping not to get an abrupt and rude response to a simple question.
Original comment by scude...@gmail.com
on 8 Jul 2012 at 9:46
Sorry this is so frustrating guys. I'm going to copy the technical part of this
to issue #291 to kind of start with a clean slate discussing the real problem
over there.
Original comment by michael.hale@gmail.com
on 8 Jul 2012 at 3:22
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
mike.auty@gmail.com
on 8 Jul 2012 at 8:35