Am 26.03.2014 00:06, schrieb Nick Coghlan: > > On 26 Mar 2014 08:32, "Georg Brandl" <g.bra...@gmx.net > <mailto: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> >> > <mailto: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.
Yeah, I took "backwards-compatibility guarantees" to also mean the "no new features" guarantee, but you're right that the two can be separated. 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/archive%40mail-archive.com
