On Thu, 5 Jan 2012 19:34:13 +0200 Maciej Fijalkowski <fij...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Just to make things clear - stdlib itself has 1/64 of tests relying on > dict order. Changing dict order in *older* pythons will break > everyone's tests and some peoples code.
Breaking tests is not a problem: they are typically not run by production code and so people can take the time to fix them. Breaking other code is a problem if it is legitimate. Relying on dict ordering is totally wrong and I don't think we should care about such cases. The only issue is when relying on hash() being stable accross runs. But hashing already varies from build to build (32-bit vs. 64-bit) and I think that anyone seriously relying on it should already have been bitten. > Making this new 2.6.x release > would mean that people using new python 2.6 would have to upgrade an > unspecified amount of their python packages, that does not sound very > cool. How about 2.7? Do you think it should also remain untouched? I am ok for leaving 2.6 alone (that's Barry's call anyway) but 2.7 is another matter - should people migrate to 3.x to get the security fix? As for 3.2, it should certainly get the fix IMO. There are not many Python 3 legacy applications relying on hash() stability, I think. > Also consider that new 2.6.x would go as a security fix to old > ubuntu, but all other packages won't, because they'll not contain > security fixes. Ubuntu can decide *not* to ship the fix if they prefer it like that. Their policies and decisions, though, should not taint ours. Regards Antoine. _______________________________________________ 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