Message136570
| Author |
vstinner |
| Recipients |
alexey-smirnov, amaury.forgeotdarc, georg.brandl, neologix, petri.lehtinen, pitrou, python-dev, socketpair, vstinner |
| Date |
2011年05月22日.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? |
|