RetroSearch Browse

Thu Mar 15 07:51:42 CET 2007 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2007-March/071970.html

glyph at divmod.com schrieb:
>  >This backwards-incompatible change is therefore contrary to policy and
>  >should be reverted, pending a proper transition plan for the change (such
>  >as introduction of an alternative API and deprecation of the existing 
> one.)
> 
> I hope that this is true, but *is* this "policy" documented as required 
> somewhere yet?  I think it should be reverted regardless, and such a 
> policy instated if one does not exist, but it is my understanding at 
> this point that it is an informal consensus rather than a policy.

I'm not quite sure what "it" is, here. If "it" is that there be no 
incompatible changes in Python: this is not policy, and not even
consensus. Instead, policy (as enforced by the release manager), and
consensus is that bug fix releases (2.x.y) must not show incompatible
behavior. For feature releases (2.x), incompatible behavior is 
acceptable (at least this is what I thought consensus is, but
apparently I'm wrong).

Regards,
Martin

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2007-March/071970.html below:

[Python-Dev] Proposal to revert r54204 (splitext change)