2013/9/27 Barry Warsaw <barry@python.org>:
> On Sep 26, 2013, at 02:30 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>
>>- the module name should be "_ensurepip" in all versions
>>- the PEP should explicitly state that the "don't remove _ensurepip
>>and it's wheel files" caveat for redistributors applies only in 3.4+
>>(where removing it will break pyvenv)
>
> I'm sorry that I probably won't be able to engage more on this thread, but I
> think my points should be fairly well understood by the PEP czar and RM.
> Should the PEP be accepted, I think both of these are good changes.

And FWIW, I generally agree with Barry about adding things to 2.7.

+1. Not to mention the general problem of adding new features in maintenance releases (what? it doesn't work for you? Check it's 2.7.6 and not 2.7.5!) , at this point in the trajectory of Python 3.x and 2.7 it sends a very wrong message.
">

(original) (raw)

On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 6:19 PM, Benjamin Peterson <benjamin@python.org> wrote:
2013/9/27 Barry Warsaw <barry@python.org>:
> On Sep 26, 2013, at 02:30 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
\>
\>>- the module name should be "\_ensurepip" in all versions
\>>- the PEP should explicitly state that the "don't remove \_ensurepip
\>>and it's wheel files" caveat for redistributors applies only in 3.4+
\>>(where removing it will break pyvenv)
\>
\> I'm sorry that I probably won't be able to engage more on this thread, but I
\> think my points should be fairly well understood by the PEP czar and RM.
\> Should the PEP be accepted, I think both of these are good changes.

And FWIW, I generally agree with Barry about adding things to 2.7.

+1\. Not to mention the general problem of adding new features in maintenance releases (what? it doesn't work for you? Check it's 2.7.6 and not 2.7.5!) , at this point in the trajectory of Python 3.x and 2.7 it sends a very wrong message.


Eli


�