On Friday 10 November 2006 01:01, A.M. Kuchling wrote: > On Thu, Nov 09, 2006 at 02:51:15PM +0100, andrew.kuchling wrote: > > Author: andrew.kuchling > > Date: Thu Nov 9 14:51:14 2006 > > New Revision: 52692 > > > > [Patch #1514544 by David Watson] use fsync() to ensure data is really on > > disk > > Should I backport this change to 2.5.1? Con: The patch adds two new > internal functions, _sync_flush() and _sync_close(), so it's an > internal API change. Pro: it's a patch that should reduce chances of > data loss, which is important to people processing mailboxes. > > Because it fixes a small chance of potential data loss and the new > functions are prefixed with _, my personal inclination would be to > backport this change.
Looking at the patch, the functions are pretty clearly internal implementation details. I'm happy for it to go into release25-maint (particularly because the consequences of the bug are so dire). Anthony -- Anthony Baxter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> It's never too late to have a happy childhood. _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
