With the incredibly long life span of 2.7, which bugs should we *not* fix?
For example, in http://bugs.python.org/issue22297 I mentioned one reason to not fix that bug was that the fix was not in
3.1-3.3, but 2.7 will outlive all those plus a couple more.
So, what are the current guidelines
On Mon, 06 Oct 2014 09:08:23 -0700
Ethan Furman et...@stoneleaf.us wrote:
With the incredibly long life span of 2.7, which bugs should we *not* fix?*
Those that are not bugs but enhancement requests.
On that issue, you pointed out there was no regression and that enums
were never meant to be
In article 5432be77.40...@stoneleaf.us,
Ethan Furman et...@stoneleaf.us wrote:
With the incredibly long life span of 2.7, which bugs should we *not* fix?
For example, in http://bugs.python.org/issue22297 I mentioned one reason to
not fix that bug was that the fix was not in
3.1-3.3, but
On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 12:24 PM, Ned Deily n...@acm.org wrote:
So 2.7.x is not security only and wouldn't reach that stage until 2020
under current policy.
Apparently no other 2.x release qualifies as security only at this
point? I would have expected at least 2.6 to fall into that category.
In article
canc-5uyj5zkb8mxha-80+bvrevyt745l16y8euq7phdom1a...@mail.gmail.com,
Skip Montanaro skip.montan...@gmail.com wrote:
Apparently no other 2.x release qualifies as security only at this
point? I would have expected at least 2.6 to fall into that category.
2.6 had its five-year run.
On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 4:33 AM, Skip Montanaro skip.montan...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 12:24 PM, Ned Deily n...@acm.org wrote:
So 2.7.x is not security only and wouldn't reach that stage until 2020
under current policy.
Apparently no other 2.x release qualifies as security only
On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 12:24 PM, Ned Deily n...@acm.org wrote:
3. security: fixing issues exploitable by attackers such as crashes,
privilege escalation and, optionally, other issues such as denial of
service attacks. Any other changes are not considered a security risk
and thus not backported
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 06.10.14 20:55, Zachary Ware wrote:
On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 12:24 PM, Ned Deily n...@acm.org wrote:
3. security: fixing issues exploitable by attackers such as crashes,
privilege escalation and, optionally, other issues such as denial of
On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 2:18 PM, Christian Tismer tis...@stackless.com wrote:
My impression is that no 3.X user ever would want to stick
with any older version.
Is that true, or am I totally wrong?
My impression is that you're mostly right, but only because those who
would still be on 3.1 are
On Mon, 06 Oct 2014 21:18:23 +0200, Christian Tismer tis...@stackless.com
wrote:
On 06.10.14 20:55, Zachary Ware wrote:
On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 12:24 PM, Ned Deily n...@acm.org wrote:
3. security: fixing issues exploitable by attackers such as crashes,
privilege escalation and, optionally,
Hi,
2014-10-06 18:08 GMT+02:00 Ethan Furman et...@stoneleaf.us:
With the incredibly long life span of 2.7, which bugs should we *not* fix?
I started a list of Python 2 bugs that will not be fixed:
http://haypo-notes.readthedocs.org/python.html#bugs-that-won-t-be-fixed-in-python-2-anymore
It
On 2014-10-06, 20:03 GMT, Victor Stinner wrote:
I started a list of Python 2 bugs that will not be fixed:
http://haypo-notes.readthedocs.org/python.html\
#bugs-that-won-t-be-fixed-in-python-2-anymore
It *is* possible to fix all bugs, but it requires a large amount of
work, and we decided to
In article
CAKJDb-P6nx5szhBeuxv0fWSJ+-5=u1cd6ay--ed2yqewwrk...@mail.gmail.com,
Zachary Ware zachary.ware+py...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 12:24 PM, Ned Deily n...@acm.org wrote:
3. security: fixing issues exploitable by attackers such as crashes,
privilege escalation and,
On Mon, Oct 6, 2014, at 19:13, Ned Deily wrote:
In article
CAKJDb-P6nx5szhBeuxv0fWSJ+-5=u1cd6ay--ed2yqewwrk...@mail.gmail.com,
Zachary Ware zachary.ware+py...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 12:24 PM, Ned Deily n...@acm.org wrote:
3. security: fixing issues exploitable by
14 matches
Mail list logo
