Message268163
| Author | rhettinger |
|---|---|
| Recipients | christian.heimes, dstufft, martin.panter, rhettinger, tim.peters, vstinner |
| Date | 2016-06-10.22:07:40 |
| SpamBayes Score | -1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified | Yes |
| Message-id | <1465596460.62.0.631064042432.issue27272@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content | |
|---|---|
> But I'll be happiest if nothing changes here (given that Guido ruled > yesterday that Python's current urandom() implementation has to be > reverted to once again match Linux's non-blocking urandom() behavior). With urandom() behavior restored, can we close this? |
|
| History | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | User | Action | Args |
| 2016-06-10 22:07:40 | rhettinger | set | recipients: + rhettinger, tim.peters, vstinner, christian.heimes, martin.panter, dstufft |
| 2016-06-10 22:07:40 | rhettinger | set | messageid: <1465596460.62.0.631064042432.issue27272@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| 2016-06-10 22:07:40 | rhettinger | link | issue27272 messages |
| 2016-06-10 22:07:40 | rhettinger | create | |