On Feb 10, 2010, at 11:46 PM, Martin v. Löwis wrote: >That would require that Barry actually *can* judge the issue at hand. In >the specific case, I would expect that Barry would defer the specifics >of the Windows issue to Windows experts, and then listen to what they >say. Yep, absolutely. >I'm personally split whether the proposed patch is correct (i.e. whether >asctime really *can* be implemented in a cross-platform manner; any >definite ruling on that would be welcome). In the past, we had rather >taken approaches like disabling runtime assertions "locally"; not sure >whether such approaches would work for asctime as well. > >In any case, I feel that the issue is not security-critical at all. >People just don't pass out-of-range values to asctime, but instead >typically pass the result of gmtime/localtime, which will not cause any >problems. Unless other details come to light, I agree. This one isn't worth holding up the release for. -Barry -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 835 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20100211/650b37a8/attachment.pgp>
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