[Python-Dev] RFC: Backport ssl.MemoryBIO and ssl.SSLObject to Python 2.7
Terry Reedy
tjreedy at udel.edu
Fri Jun 2 16:29:57 EDT 2017
More information about the Python-Dev mailing list
Fri Jun 2 16:29:57 EDT 2017
- Previous message (by thread): [Python-Dev] RFC: Backport ssl.MemoryBIO and ssl.SSLObject to Python 2.7
- Next message (by thread): [Python-Dev] RFC: Backport ssl.MemoryBIO and ssl.SSLObject to Python 2.7
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
On 6/2/2017 12:21 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote: > On Jun 03, 2017, at 02:10 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote: >> The benefit of making any backport a private API is that it would mean >> we weren't committing to support that API for general use: it would be >> supported *solely* for the use case discussed in the PEP (i.e. helping >> to advance the development of PEP 543 without breaking pip >> bootstrapping in the process). > > That sounds like a good compromise. My own major objection was in exposing a > new public API in Python 2.7, which would clearly be a new feature. Which would likely be seen by someone as justifying other requests to add to 2.7 'just this one more essential new feature' ;-). -- Terry Jan Reedy
- Previous message (by thread): [Python-Dev] RFC: Backport ssl.MemoryBIO and ssl.SSLObject to Python 2.7
- Next message (by thread): [Python-Dev] RFC: Backport ssl.MemoryBIO and ssl.SSLObject to Python 2.7
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Python-Dev mailing list