RetroSearch Browse

Sat Mar 22 23:34:34 CET 2014 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2014-March/133346.html

On 23 March 2014 08:23, "Martin v. Löwis" <martin at v.loewis.de> wrote:
> Am 22.03.14 23:05, schrieb Donald Stufft:
>> I think the pep doesn't mandate that someone does. It still requires someone to care enough to actually write the patch. It just allows such a patch to be merged.
>
> Does it actually? Unfortunately, I never got around to writing the PEP
> on security-only branches, so the terminology of PEP 466 is unclear.
> It says "maintenance brances", which could mean three things:
> - all branches that have ever been made off default in
>   hg.python.org/cpython (i.e. back to 2.0). This would be the
>   traditional definition of "maintenance branch" in a version control
>   system, but is probably not intended by the PEP
> - all branches from which still releases are made (whether security-only
>   or bug fix)
> - all bug fix branches
>
> Clarification of this is just a minor nit, though - although the
> maintainers of the old maintenance branches should (IMO) have a say
> whether they accept a certain change on a certain branch.

Both good points, I'll clarify them in the PEP.

Cheers,
Nick.

-- 
Nick Coghlan   |   ncoghlan at gmail.com   |   Brisbane, Australia

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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2014-March/133346.html below:

[Python-Dev] PEP 466: Proposed policy change for handling network security enhancements