> On 1 Jun 2017, at 14:53, Antoine Pitrou <solip...@pitrou.net> wrote: > > On Thu, 1 Jun 2017 14:37:55 +0100 > Cory Benfield <c...@lukasa.co.uk> wrote: >>> >>> And indeed it doesn't. Unless the target user base for pip is widely >>> different than Python's, it shouldn't cause you any problems either. >> >> Maybe not now, but I think it’s fair to say that it did, right? > > Until Python 3.2 and perhaps 3.3, yes. Since 3.4, definitely not. For > example asyncio quickly grew a sizable community around it, even though > it had established Python 2-compatible competitors.
Sure, but “until 3.2” covers a long enough time to take us from now to “deprecation of Python 2”. Given that the Requests team is 4 people, unlike python-dev’s much larger number, I suspect we’d have at least as much pain proportionally as Python did. I’m not wild about signing up for that. >>> Then the PEP is really wrong or misleading in the way it states its own >>> motivations. >> >> How so? > > In the sentence "There are plans afoot to look at moving Requests to a > more event-loop-y model, and doing so basically mandates a MemoryBIO", > and also in the general feeling it gives that the backport is motivated > by security reasons primarily. Ok, let’s address those together. There are security reasons to do the backport, but they are “it helps us build a pathway to PEP 543”. Right now there are a lot of people interested in seeing PEP 543 happen, but vastly fewer in a position to do the work. I am, but only if I can actually use it for the things that are in my job. If I can’t, then PEP 543 becomes an “evenings and weekends” activity for me *at best*, and something I have to drop entirely at worst. Adopting PEP 543 *would* be a security benefit, so while this PEP itself is not directly in and of itself a security benefit, it builds a pathway to something that is. As to the plans to move Requests to a more event loop-y model, I think that it does stand in the way of this, but only insomuch as, again, we want our event loopy model to be as bug-free as possible. But I can concede that rewording on that point would be valuable. *However*, it’s my understanding that even if I did that rewording, you’d still be against it. Is that correct? Cory _______________________________________________ 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
