Author ncoghlan
Recipients Arfrever, alex, benjamin.peterson, christian.heimes, dstufft, geertj, giampaolo.rodola, janssen, ncoghlan, pitrou
Date 2015-02-12.00:59:24
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <1423702764.98.0.0644104400715.issue22559@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
In-reply-to
Content
While I agree with the idea of backporting this at some point after it has been published in a 3.x release, Guido also specifically requested that we *not* treat PEP 466 as blanket permission to backport other network security features to Python 2.7. (I originally had that kind of wording in the PEP, and he convinced me to take it out to ensure we considered each future feature backport request on its own merits)

That means 2.7.x should track the 3.4.x maintenance branch until after 3.5 is released, and then it should start tracking the 3.5.x maintenance branch.

However, any new 3.5 ssl features will need their own backporting PEP, rather than relying on the previous approval in PEP 466 to backport ssl features from 3.4.
History
Date User Action Args
2015-02-12 00:59:25ncoghlansetrecipients: + ncoghlan, geertj, janssen, pitrou, giampaolo.rodola, christian.heimes, benjamin.peterson, Arfrever, alex, dstufft
2015-02-12 00:59:24ncoghlansetmessageid: <1423702764.98.0.0644104400715.issue22559@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
2015-02-12 00:59:24ncoghlanlinkissue22559 messages
2015-02-12 00:59:24ncoghlancreate