Message100570
I've removed 2.5 and added 3.2 because there won't be further bugfix releases of 2.5 and the issue also affects 3.2.
IMHO changing this behavior is not a bugfix and is therefore out of scope for 2.6.x, in particular because this change might break code that runs fine on OSX and assumes the current behavior.
The documntation is not entirely clear on the behavior of the accept method, the best I could find is the documentation of the setblocking method: that says that all sockets are blocking by default, that would mean that the result of accept should be a blocking socket.
I'm therefore +1 for this change. I'm setting the 'needs review' flag because I'd like some input from other developers as well. |
|
Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
2010-03-07 09:35:49 | ronaldoussoren | set | recipients:
+ ronaldoussoren, loewis, giampaolo.rodola, nicdumz, bbangert, Justin.Cappos |
2010-03-07 09:35:48 | ronaldoussoren | set | messageid: <1267954548.73.0.27056463306.issue7995@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
2010-03-07 09:35:47 | ronaldoussoren | link | issue7995 messages |
2010-03-07 09:35:46 | ronaldoussoren | create | |
|