RetroSearch Browse

Fri Jun 9 14:41:46 EDT 2017 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2017-June/148295.html

On Jun 09, 2017, at 08:43 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:

>So honestly, I'd be +1 for either approach:
>
>- stdlib backport to make dual-stack maintenance easier for the
>current volunteers, and we'll see how things work out on the
>ease-of-adoption front

As I've said, I'm okay with this approach as long as we don't expose new
public APIs in 2.7.  That won't prevent other folks from using the private
APIs, but we have no responsibility to support them.

>- PyPI backport to make 2.7 adoption easier, and we'll continue
>pestering redistributors to actually fund maintenance of Python 2.7's
>SSL stack properly (and encourage customers of those redistributors to
>do the same)

Of course, lots of distributions are completely voluntary, so that kind of
pestering falls on underfunded ears. ;)  But a PyPI backport might still be
useful since those third party packages can be distro-fied into current and
backported channels.

-Barry

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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2017-June/148295.html below:

[Python-Dev] RFC: Backport ssl.MemoryBIO and ssl.SSLObject to Python 2.7