[Python-Dev] RFC: Backport ssl.MemoryBIO and ssl.SSLObject to Python 2.7 (original) (raw)
Cory Benfield cory at lukasa.co.uk
Mon Jun 5 04:37:02 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 2 Jun 2017, at 17:59, Donald Stufft <donald at stufft.io> wrote:
I suspect (though I’d let him speak for himself) that Cory would rather continue to be sync only than require pip to go back to not using requests.
We are not wedded to supporting pip, but I think the interaction between the two tools is positive. I think pip gains a lot from depending on us, and we get a lot of value from having pip as a dependency. So the cost of supporting pip would have to be pretty darn high for us to want to stop doing that, and so on this issue I think Donald is right.
Cory -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20170605/2b6bec29/attachment.html>
- 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 ]