Author r.david.murray
Recipients alecsandru.patrascu, brett.cannon, gregory.p.smith, lemburg, pitrou, r.david.murray, scoder, skrah, zach.ware
Date 2016-01-20.13:57:16
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <1453298236.46.0.932766852031.issue25702@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
In-reply-to
Content
My understanding is that we (starting with Guido) have made a blanket exception for 2.7 for useful performance and build-system-only related patches.  That doesn't mean *anything* can go in (the usual rules about "is this worth it/backward compatible/won't break things" still apply) but it is a lower bar than is true for other maintenance only releases.  Perhaps my understanding is in error, though.  

I believe Intel is committed to supporting this, so if there do turn out to be any maintenance issues they can handle them.  (Which IIUC is Nick's argument: if someone wants to support 2.7 with stuff we are willing to let in, we should let them as long as they credibly commit to supporting it.)  I'm currently part of that Intel support, though, so someone else should rule on this.
History
Date User Action Args
2016-01-20 13:57:16r.david.murraysetrecipients: + r.david.murray, lemburg, brett.cannon, gregory.p.smith, pitrou, scoder, skrah, zach.ware, alecsandru.patrascu
2016-01-20 13:57:16r.david.murraysetmessageid: <1453298236.46.0.932766852031.issue25702@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
2016-01-20 13:57:16r.david.murraylinkissue25702 messages
2016-01-20 13:57:16r.david.murraycreate