On Jan 28, 2008 1:47 PM, Barry Warsaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Martin v. Löwis wrote: > >> If the intent is really to do a source-only releases mostly for system > >> vendors, then I don't see the harm in leaving those changes in. I mean, > >> a vendor is going to cherry pick the ones they want anyway, so let's > >> just make it easy for them to do this. That might mean publishing the > >> svn logs a long with the source release, or publishing each diff and log > >> message separately. > > > > It's not just vendors, also end-users who are concerned about the > > security of their installations. > > > >> I would be bummed to rollback the email package changes. > > > > You don't have to - I will do it for you (although I don't > > understand fully what "to be bummed" means). > > It means I'd be sad. ;) > > The problem is that I make separate releases of the standalone email > package from these branches, so that means that email 3.0.3 or 2.5.10 > will have regressions. > > Unless you're offering to also re-apply these changes after you make the > Python releases <wink>.
This sounds like a special case that we might consider. Though I also wonder if it wouldn't be easiest for you to just create separate branches for the email package rather than rely on the core Python branching structure and release rules. -- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
