Aahz> As one of the frequent ranters about compatibility issues, I
Aahz> thoroughly endorse this approach WRT "batteries included" as long
Aahz> as the APIs stay the same.
I don't think APIs have much to do with this particular item. No API
changed in xmlrpclib.py, but the code became incompatible with pre-2.0
releases. I checked in a change to xmlrpclib.py that used "import foo as
bar". The question I raised implicitly by making an incompatible change to
xmlrpclib.py was "is it okay to use all the features of the current release
in a core module?". Tim's answer was a qualified "yes", the exception being
for modules maintained by other authors. In PythonLabs view it's ultimately
Fredrik's responsibility to maintain backward compatibility if he so
chooses. I realized it about 30 seconds after I checked in the change,
which was why I mentioned it. I didn't know if he maintains a separate copy
for backwards compatible releases or relies on the code now in the Python
CVS repository. In retrospect, I should probably have sent him a note
instead of checking in the change.
Skip
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4