[Python-Dev] RFC: Backport ssl.MemoryBIO and ssl.SSLObject to Python 2.7 (original) (raw)
Terry Reedy tjreedy at udel.edu
Fri Jun 2 16:29:57 EDT 2017
- Previous message (by thread): [Python-Dev] RFC: Backport ssl.MemoryBIO and ssl.SSLObject to Python 2.7
- Next message (by thread): [Python-Dev] RFC: Backport ssl.MemoryBIO and ssl.SSLObject to Python 2.7
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
On 6/2/2017 12:21 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
On Jun 03, 2017, at 02:10 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
The benefit of making any backport a private API is that it would mean we weren't committing to support that API for general use: it would be supported solely for the use case discussed in the PEP (i.e. helping to advance the development of PEP 543 without breaking pip bootstrapping in the process). That sounds like a good compromise. My own major objection was in exposing a new public API in Python 2.7, which would clearly be a new feature.
Which would likely be seen by someone as justifying other requests to add to 2.7 'just this one more essential new feature' ;-).
-- Terry Jan Reedy
- Previous message (by thread): [Python-Dev] RFC: Backport ssl.MemoryBIO and ssl.SSLObject to Python 2.7
- Next message (by thread): [Python-Dev] RFC: Backport ssl.MemoryBIO and ssl.SSLObject to Python 2.7
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]