GeezerVison

Hello, and thanks for your contribution!

I'm a bot set up to make sure that the project can legally accept this contribution by verifying everyone involved has signed the PSF contributor agreement (CLA).

CLA Missing

Our records indicate the following people have not signed the CLA:

@gstein

For legal reasons we need all the people listed to sign the CLA before we can look at your contribution. Please follow the steps outlined in the CPython devguide to rectify this issue.

If you have recently signed the CLA, please wait at least one business day
before our records are updated.

You can check yourself to see if the CLA has been received.

Thanks again for the contribution, we look forward to reviewing it!

CLA is in-process. I am also a historic committer.

Hi, and thanks for the PR. Please take a look at Serhiy's comment in msg387858 in issue 43350:
"Maybe the code could be rewritten in more explicit way and call pysqlite_statement_reset() only when it is necessary, but for now I don't think that just removing one call will make the code better."

Also, see GH-24681.

Thank you! I had not seen that other work. This seems like a straightforward fix. ... ??

Thank you! I had not seen that other work. This seems like a straightforward fix. ... ??

That's what I thought too :) However, Serhiy and Berker disagrees, so I guess the redundant reset stays for now.

Silly choice, because clearly it makes observers (such as myself) curious and wastes their time. Justification for keeping the redundancy seems warranted. Otherwise, you'll get this PR, and #24681 and bpo-43350 rolling in, repeatedly. ... Total waste of community energy, for no reason. (I'm already confused on spending this much effort to toss a few lines of code)

ping: @serhiy-storchaka and @berkerpeksag

Well, we all are volunteers and we don't have the time to verify every single observers low effort pull requests. It's your responsibility to do your own research before submitting your PR (so you'd find out that you need to create a BPO issue for this type of change and that bpo-43350 exists)

More importantly, telling people who maintain this piece of code that their decision is silly won't help your case.

Greg, I've started to dig through the pysqlite repo in search for an answer to the redundancy. I've added links to relevant commits in the bpo.

@berkerpeksag I've done some research. Please see the bpo.

Just trying to help clean up the codebase. Thank you @erlend-aasland for your effort! ... back in the day, I'd simply make a commit to the Python codebase. But somewhere in the many version control moves, my commit privileges got dropped. So it goes...

This PR is stale because it has been open for 30 days with no activity.

Closing this, as the current code was rewritten in #30379. Thanks, nonetheless, for the PR, Greg!

Not a problem @erlend-aasland ... I looked at #30379, and yeah: this PR is redundant. ... You've been quite thorough! Good work.