R. David Murray <rdmur...@bitdance.com> added the comment: It getting in to 3.2 would be a release manager call, so I've set it to release blocker so Georg can make the call. My opinion is that while I would *really* like to see this fixed in 3.2, the changes really should have a thorough *design* review as well as a code review.
The argument for putting it in would be that it is broken as is (at least for binary file upload, possibly in other ways as well), and if we can get agreement on the API changes, we can fix any remaining bugs in 3.2.1. However, making API changes at this point (post-beta) requires a significant exception to our normal development rules, and I don't like doing things this rushed and last minute. But I also don't like the thought of having FieldStorage be broken in 3.2. Georg, I'm really busy this week, and don't have time to do a review, unfortunately. If you think it worth considering putting it in, I can try to take a look at the API changes tomorrow, but unfortunately can make no promise to do so. Hopefully others can, if needed. ---------- nosy: +georg.brandl priority: high -> release blocker _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue4953> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
