Guido van Rossum <gu...@python.org> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 10:51 AM, Jean-Paul Calderone <exar...@divmod.com> > wrote: > > On Wed, 4 Mar 2009 10:46:28 -0800, Guido van Rossum <gu...@python.org> > > wrote: > >> > >> On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 10:27 AM, Jean-Paul Calderone <exar...@divmod.com> > >> wrote: > >> [snip] > >>> > >>> So, as a disinterested party in this specific case, I'd say revert to > >>> the pre-2.6 behavior. It does less harm than leaving the current > >>> behavior. > >> > >> Sorry, but I really do think that we should maintain backward > >> compatibility *within* the 2.6 series as well. If that makes it > >> impossible to also maintain the 2.5 behavior, perhaps some flag could > >> be added to restore 2.5 compatibility, e.g. > >> > >> import asyncore > >> asyncore.python_25_compat = True > >> > >> Note that this "API" is designed to work in 2.5 as well. :-) > > > But why? The argument I made had the objective of minimizing developer > > effort. What's the objective of maintaining backward compatibility within > > the 2.6 series in this case (sorry if it appeared earlier in this thread > > and I missed it)? > > The same as always. We don't change APIs in bugfix releases.
OK, seems reasonable. But in this case, isn't the broken API the bug that's being fixed? Do we need a different way to fix broken APIs in bugfix releases? Bill _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com