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 gvanrossum
Recipients docs@python, gvanrossum, pydanny, vstinner, yselivanov
Date 2014-07-31.17:11:15
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <CAP7+vJ+KgTsmvade=X6gp9wxzQkMnAH1y8UL-XsZN94i6Ar2sg@mail.gmail.com>
In-reply-to <1406825492.88.0.379500360702.issue22112@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
Content
asyncio has an explicit exemption from the general rule that bugfixes
should not add new features. This is because of the "provisional" status of
the PEP. We'll stop doing this once 3.5 is out.

I don't know what's up with the online docs.

On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 9:51 AM, Daniel Greenfeld <report@bugs.python.org>
wrote:

>
> Daniel Greenfeld added the comment:
>
> First, if there is documentation that says, "3.4.1", doesn't it make sense
> that the documentation should only be for 3.4.1? Which means that this
> create_task documentation should be reverted in the 3.4.1 documentation to
> match the 3.4.1 specification.
>
> Second and most respectfully, why is a feature being added in 3.4.2? I
> thought this kind of release (3.4.1 to 3.4.2) was for bug fixes and
> security issues, not new features. Unless create_task was in the original
> 3.4 specification, I argue that create_task belongs in 3.5. In it's place,
> a recipe of running tasks in parallel fashion per gvanrossum's suggestion
> of asyncio.async() could be added.
>
> ----------
>
> _______________________________________
> Python tracker <report@bugs.python.org>
> <http://bugs.python.org/issue22112>
> _______________________________________
>
History
Date User Action Args
2014-07-31 17:11:15gvanrossumsetrecipients: + gvanrossum, vstinner, pydanny, docs@python, yselivanov
2014-07-31 17:11:15gvanrossumlinkissue22112 messages
2014-07-31 17:11:15gvanrossumcreate