On Tue, Dec 09, 2008 at 10:45:15PM -0500, Cole Robinson wrote: > >> Hmm, 90% of this patch is a huge mechanical change which has nothing > >> to do with this commit subject. I think it's better to separate > >> the two changes. > > I really don't think it's unreasonable to ask that these two unrelated > changes be split. The commits will be more self contained, and it will > be easier for review. Hmpph, OK. > > Locking away the contents of util.py and never changing it > > again[1] makes it really hard to *NOT* maintain the API - any patch touches > > that file implies the patch is broken. > > I don't follow this. By moving the actual content to _util.py, API can > _still_ be broken: someone could add a new function argument without > a default value. I was really referring to someone inadvertently *adding* to the API. I'll go ahead and move most stuff back to util.py. regards john _______________________________________________ et-mgmt-tools mailing list et-mgmt-tools@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/et-mgmt-tools
