Message 136570 - Python tracker

Message136570

Author	vstinner
Recipients	alexey-smirnov, amaury.forgeotdarc, georg.brandl, neologix, petri.lehtinen, pitrou, python-dev, socketpair, vstinner
Date	2011-05-22.20:19:05
SpamBayes Score	1.9799693e-06
Marked as misclassified	No
Message-id	<1306095543.3801.2.camel@marge>
In-reply-to	<1306076838.86.0.998398194266.issue12105@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>

Content
> One moment -- adding a new value to the os module looks like a new > feature to me. Is there any convincing reason why this needs to go to > 3.2? (And it most definitely shouldn't go to 3.1.) Python doesn't suppose atomic open+CLOEXEC anymore, I consider this as a regression from Python 2 (which support open("re") with the GNU libc). Because the patch is simple, I think that it can go in 3.1 and 3.2. Am I wrong? But... it tooks some years until someone noticed this regression. Can we add new features to old releases?

Content

> One moment -- adding a new value to the os module looks like a new
> feature to me.  Is there any convincing reason why this needs to go to
> 3.2?  (And it most definitely shouldn't go to 3.1.)

Python doesn't suppose atomic open+CLOEXEC anymore, I consider this as a
regression from Python 2 (which support open("re") with the GNU libc).
Because the patch is simple, I think that it can go in 3.1 and 3.2. Am I
wrong? But... it tooks some years until someone noticed this regression.

Can we add new features to old releases?

History
Date	User	Action	Args
2011-05-22 20:19:07	vstinner	set	recipients: + vstinner, georg.brandl, amaury.forgeotdarc, pitrou, neologix, socketpair, python-dev, petri.lehtinen, alexey-smirnov
2011-05-22 20:19:06	vstinner	link	issue12105 messages
2011-05-22 20:19:05	vstinner	create