On 26 Mar 2014 08:32, "Georg Brandl" <g.bra...@gmx.net> wrote: > > Am 25.03.2014 23:15, schrieb Nick Coghlan: > > > > On 26 Mar 2014 01:19, "Brett Cannon" <bcan...@gmail.com > > <mailto:bcan...@gmail.com>> wrote: > >> As long as we make it clear we have chosen to change our > > backwards-compatibility guarantees in the name of security and have a link to > > the last backwards-compatible release then I agree as well. > > > > I am not sure how this meme got started, but let me be clear: the proposed > > policy DOES NOT provide blanket permission to break backwards compatibility in > > the affected modules. It only allows ADDING new features to bring these modules > > into line with their Python 3 counterparts, making it easier for third party > > packages like requests to do the right thing in a cross-version compatible way. > > We know. That's what we mean by that.
That's not what Brett said - he called 2.7.6 the "last backwards compatible release". That's not correct, as even under my proposal, 2.7.7+ will still be backwards compatible. Cheers, Nick. > > Georg > > > _______________________________________________ > Python-Dev mailing list > Python-Dev@python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev > Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/ncoghlan%40gmail.com
_______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
