Jason R. Coombs <jar...@jaraco.com> added the comment: Martin makes a good point, but I see it somewhat differently.
virtualenv and its users have always accepted the risk of running an old interpreter against a different standard library (of the same minor version). So the risk of not receiving the security patch in the interpreter is well-known. The risk they have not (previously) accepted (afaik) is that an interpreter of one patch version will not be compatible with the standard library of another patch version. I could very well be wrong about the latter. While I think we all agree that this is not a bug in Python, per se, the more practical matter is that this issue is likely to cause substantial trouble in practice, perhaps an unprecedented experience. I would hate for all the hard work that was put into this security fix to be tainted by cries of trouble caused by the fix (however unjustified). Providing backward-compatibility for virtualenv would avoid that risk and would not expose the users of virtualenv to any more risk than they've previously accepted. For that reason, I'm +1 on the compatibility patch(es). ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue14444> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
