Re: [Python-Dev] On "PEP 546 — Backport ssl.MemoryBIO and ssl.SSLObject to Python 2.7"

Le 10 juin 2017 22:09, "Guido van Rossum" a écrit : Let's retroactively make Benjamin the BDFL-delegate for this PEP. The effect is the same: the PEP is officially accepted. Ok fine, I will update the PEP and then start to work on review the old implementation written by Alex

Re: [Python-Dev] On "PEP 546 — Backport ssl.MemoryBIO and ssl.SSLObject to Python 2.7"

Thank you Benjamin ;-) Victor Le 10 juin 2017 01:58, "Benjamin Peterson" a écrit : > The reason we're having this conversation at all is probably a matter of > timing. If MemoryBIO was in Python 3 when PEP 466 was accepted, it surely > would have come along for the ride to

Re: [Python-Dev] On "PEP 546 — Backport ssl.MemoryBIO and ssl.SSLObject to Python 2.7"

Agreed, that’s good reasoning. Thanks for short-circuiting the discussion! Cheers, Steve Top-posted from my Windows phone From: Benjamin Peterson Sent: Friday, June 9, 2017 16:59 To: python-dev@python.org Subject: [Python-Dev] On "PEP 546 — Backport ssl.MemoryBIO and ssl.SSLObject to Python

Re: [Python-Dev] On "PEP 546 — Backport ssl.MemoryBIO and ssl.SSLObject to Python 2.7"

On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 2:09 AM, Victor Stinner wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 4:56 PM, Benjamin Peterson > > wrote: > > Therefore, as 2.7 release manager, I'm accepting the PEP. > > 2017-06-10 3:03 GMT+02:00 Guido van Rossum :

Re: [Python-Dev] RFC: Backport ssl.MemoryBIO and ssl.SSLObject to Python 2.7

> On 9 Jun 2017, at 20:54, Donald Stufft wrote: > > > All that being said, if someone *does* want pip to use WinHTTP, requests > provides a mechanism where you can plug in your own network handling code, so > someone could write a requests-winhttp adapter that did that, and

Re: [Python-Dev] On "PEP 546 — Backport ssl.MemoryBIO and ssl.SSLObject to Python 2.7"

On 10 June 2017 at 09:56, Benjamin Peterson wrote: > The reason we're having this conversation at all is probably a matter of > timing. If MemoryBIO was in Python 3 when PEP 466 was accepted, it surely > would have come along for the ride to 2.7. I believe PEP 466 is

Re: [Python-Dev] 2017 Python Language Summit coverage finale

On 10 June 2017 at 01:14, Guido van Rossum wrote: > Also a good summary for those of us that *did* attend! Thanks Jake from all > participants. > > (And Nick, I hope you won't make a habit of skipping the summit. :-) I've learned a fair bit about where my limits are for the

Re: [Python-Dev] On "PEP 546 — Backport ssl.MemoryBIO and ssl.SSLObject to Python 2.7"

On 2017-06-10 01:56, Benjamin Peterson wrote: > The reason we're having this conversation at all is probably a matter of > timing. If MemoryBIO was in Python 3 when PEP 466 was accepted, it > surely would have come along for the ride to 2.7. I believe PEP 466 is > generally considered to have

Re: [Python-Dev] On "PEP 546 — Backport ssl.MemoryBIO and ssl.SSLObject to Python 2.7"

> On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 4:56 PM, Benjamin Peterson > wrote: > Therefore, as 2.7 release manager, I'm accepting the PEP. 2017-06-10 3:03 GMT+02:00 Guido van Rossum : > Well reasoned! Guido: by default, you are the only one who pronounces officially on a