➜

This issue tracker has been migrated to GitHub, and is currently read-only.
For more information, see the GitHub FAQs in the Python's Developer Guide.

Author vstinner
Recipients alexey-smirnov, amaury.forgeotdarc, georg.brandl, neologix, petri.lehtinen, pitrou, python-dev, socketpair, vstinner
Date 2011-05-22.20:19:05
SpamBayes Score 1.9799693e-06
Marked as misclassified No
Message-id <1306095543.3801.2.camel@marge>
In-reply-to <1306076838.86.0.998398194266.issue12105@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
Content 
> One moment -- adding a new value to the os module looks like a new
> feature to me.  Is there any convincing reason why this needs to go to
> 3.2?  (And it most definitely shouldn't go to 3.1.)

Python doesn't suppose atomic open+CLOEXEC anymore, I consider this as a
regression from Python 2 (which support open("re") with the GNU libc).
Because the patch is simple, I think that it can go in 3.1 and 3.2. Am I
wrong? But... it tooks some years until someone noticed this regression.

Can we add new features to old releases?
History
Date User Action Args
2011-05-22 20:19:07vstinnersetrecipients: + vstinner, georg.brandl, amaury.forgeotdarc, pitrou, neologix, socketpair, python-dev, petri.lehtinen, alexey-smirnov
2011-05-22 20:19:06vstinnerlinkissue12105 messages
2011-05-22 20:19:05vstinnercreate