Author pitrou
Recipients Mike.Lissner, demian.brecht, ezio.melotti, ncoghlan, orsenthil, pitrou
Date 2014-08-06.02:51:24
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <1407293484.94.0.203173478378.issue22118@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
In-reply-to
Content
> It /does/ break backwards compatibility, but it seems that previous
> logic was incorrect (based on my upcoming checking for consistency
> between RFCs). As such, I'm not sure that it should be fixed < 3.5.
> Thoughts?

Actually, the logic seems to be correct according to RFC 1808 (which the variable names in the tests seem to hint at, as well). I think it's fine to upgrade the semantics to newer RFCs, but we should only do it in 3.5 indeed.
History
Date User Action Args
2014-08-06 02:51:24pitrousetrecipients: + pitrou, ncoghlan, orsenthil, ezio.melotti, demian.brecht, Mike.Lissner
2014-08-06 02:51:24pitrousetmessageid: <1407293484.94.0.203173478378.issue22118@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
2014-08-06 02:51:24pitroulinkissue22118 messages
2014-08-06 02:51:24pitroucreate