Nick Coghlan schrieb am 31.08.2016 um 06:30:
> On 31 August 2016 at 04:55, Serhiy Storchaka wrote:
>> On 30.08.16 21:20, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>>> But the performance overhead of iterating over a 1-element list
>>> is small enough (it's just an array access after a pointer dereference)
>>> that it
On 31.08.2016 01:55, Gregory P. Smith wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 1:08 PM M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
>>> On 29.08.2016 22:16, Christian Heimes wrote:
>>> In my
>>> opinion it is more than reasonable to ditch 1.0.1 and earlier.
>>
>> I want you to consider the consequences of doing this carefully.
>
On 2016-08-30 22:07, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
> That was not my point. It's unfortunate that Python depends on
> a library which is inevitably going to need updates frequently,
> and which then may have the implication that Python won't compile on
> systems which don't ship with more recent OpenSSL lib
On Wed, 31 Aug 2016 10:31:12 +0200
"M.-A. Lemburg" wrote:
>
> I am thinking of Python users out there who are running on LTS
> OS releases simply because their IT doesn't let them run anything
> else.
There is a solution nowadays, which is to use Anaconda (or Miniconda).
Regards
Antoine.
___
On 2016-08-31 10:31, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
> In all this discussion I have yet to find a compelling security
> relevant argument for using an 1.0.2 API which is so important
> that we cannot make this optional at runtime.
>
> The only argument Christian reported was this one:
>
> """
>> BTW: Are t
On 31.08.2016 10:50, Christian Heimes wrote:
> On 2016-08-31 10:31, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
>> In all this discussion I have yet to find a compelling security
>> relevant argument for using an 1.0.2 API which is so important
>> that we cannot make this optional at runtime.
>>
>> The only argument Chri
On 31.08.2016 10:43, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Aug 2016 10:31:12 +0200
> "M.-A. Lemburg" wrote:
>>
>> I am thinking of Python users out there who are running on LTS
>> OS releases simply because their IT doesn't let them run anything
>> else.
>
> There is a solution nowadays, which is to
Le 31/08/2016 à 11:33, M.-A. Lemburg a écrit :
> On 31.08.2016 10:43, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>> On Wed, 31 Aug 2016 10:31:12 +0200
>> "M.-A. Lemburg" wrote:
>>>
>>> I am thinking of Python users out there who are running on LTS
>>> OS releases simply because their IT doesn't let them run anything
On 2016-08-31 11:33, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
> On 31.08.2016 10:50, Christian Heimes wrote:
>> On 2016-08-31 10:31, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
>>> In all this discussion I have yet to find a compelling security
>>> relevant argument for using an 1.0.2 API which is so important
>>> that we cannot make this o
On 31 August 2016 at 15:40, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 30, 2016, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>> What if we included local variable annotations in func.__annotations__
>> as cells, like the entries in func.__closure__?
>>
>> We could also use that as a micro-optimisation technique: once
On 2016-08-30 18:00, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Aug 2016 22:40:11 +0200
> Christian Heimes wrote:
>>
>> Here is the deal for 2.7 to 3.5:
>>
>> 1) All versions older than 0.9.8 are completely out-of-scope and no
>> longer supported.
>>
>> 2) 0.9.8 is semi-support. Python will still compile
On 31.08.2016 12:05, Christian Heimes wrote:
> This was my last reply to your mails on this topic. It's clear to me
> that you are not open to Cory's, Nick's or my arguments and that you
> won't change your position. More replies are just a waste of my limited
> time.
I *am* open to arguments, but
On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 07:15:55PM -0700, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 6:00 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 02:20:26PM -0700, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> >> I'm happy to present PEP 526 for your collective review:
> >
> > Are you hoping to get this in befo
On 31 August 2016 at 19:33, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
> On 31.08.2016 10:43, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>> On Wed, 31 Aug 2016 10:31:12 +0200
>> "M.-A. Lemburg" wrote:
>>>
>>> I am thinking of Python users out there who are running on LTS
>>> OS releases simply because their IT doesn't let them run anythin
On 31 August 2016 at 20:20, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
> ... which would then mean: Python's compatibility roadmap will
> be dictated by OpenSSL.
>
> I won't buy into that, sorry. Crypto is a helper in certain
> situations, it's not what Python is all about. We should not
> let OpenSSL dictate how and w
On 31 August 2016 at 13:09, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> I guess as long as they're included somewhere in the AST for the
> function body, I don't mind if the translation to bytecode throws them
> away - that's essentially saying that a function level type annotation
> is effectively interpreted as if i
On 31.08.2016 14:02, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> On 31 August 2016 at 20:20, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
>> ... which would then mean: Python's compatibility roadmap will
>> be dictated by OpenSSL.
>>
>> I won't buy into that, sorry. Crypto is a helper in certain
>> situations, it's not what Python is all abou
I think it's time for this thread to stop as everyone seems to be talking
in circles. Christian said he's going to write a PEP so let's wait for that
before discussing this any further so we have a concrete proposal to focus
around.
On Wed, 31 Aug 2016 at 05:04 Nick Coghlan wrote:
> On 31 August
Hi,
I have 7 patches for 3.6 ready for merging. The new features were
discussed on Security-SIG and reviewed by Victor or GPS. The patches
just need one final review and an ACK. The first three patches should
land in 2.7, 3.4 and 3.5, too.
http://bugs.python.org/issue26470
Make OpenSSL module com
19 matches
Mail list logo
