On 2017-06-10 01:56, Benjamin Peterson wrote: > The reason we're having this conversation at all is probably a matter of > timing. If MemoryBIO was in Python 3 when PEP 466 was accepted, it > surely would have come along for the ride to 2.7. I believe PEP 466 is > generally considered to have produced positive results. PEP 546, > carrying no breaking changes, is less risky than PEP 466. > > The reluctance to bend 2.7 rules is healthy. This PEP is part of the > price we pay, though, for making a backwards-incompatible release. The > security landscape has and will change over the 10+ python-dev-supported > life span of 2.7. During that time, we have an obligation to keep Python > 2 secure. Part of that is supporting modern security interfaces, which > are features. This change is needed to make another stdlib feature, > ensurepip (which is itself yet another 2.7.x backport) work well. > > Therefore, as 2.7 release manager, I'm accepting the PEP.
That's fantastic news. Thanks Benjamin! Christian _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
