On Nov 26, 2015, at 02:13 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote: >PEP 476 rejected providing a public indefinitely maintained API for this, so >PEP 493 is specifically about helping commercial redistributors offer a >smoother transition plan to customers without affecting the public Python >level API, and without encouraging a plethora of mutually incompatible >transition schemes.
Of course, the API would only have to be support for the life of 2.7; it would never go in 3.x so the burden is minimal. >PEP 493 isn't about attempting to rehash the PEP 476 discussions in >search of a different conclusion, so this would need to be a different >PEP, preferably one that targets Python 3.6 first and covers more than >just HTTPS. That seems like overkill. PEP 493 is specifically about Python 2.7 and providing ways for downstreams to facilitate more choice for end-users and end-administrators. Although I think it could safely sneak in after rc1, that would be for the RM to decide. Even if it were deferred to 2.7.12, it would still provide a better, more consistent experience if implemented upstream. Cheers, -Barry
Attachment:
pgp1_rS2ossYp.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com