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 lemburg
Recipients Colm Buckley, Lukasa, alex, doko, dstufft, larry, lemburg, martin.panter, matejcik, ned.deily, python-dev, rhettinger, skrah, thomas-petazzoni, vstinner, ztane
Date 2016-06-07.13:16:34
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <>
In-reply-to <>
On 07.06.2016 15:12, Donald Stufft wrote:
> Since there's obviously contention about what the right answer here is, I suggest we should revert the patch (since the old behavior already exists in 3.5 and is shipped to thousands of people already, and status quo wins) and then continue the discussion about what to do further beyond that. At the very least, if something isn't decided prior to Larry cutting a release, then it should be reverted then.

Wait. Under that argument, every regression we introduce
would be deemed fine and not bug, because the "status quo
wins". I'm sorry, but that's non sense.

Python 3.5 introduced a regression w/r to the behavior of
os.urandom() compared to Python 3.4 and older releases.

If someone wants getrandom() behavior, we should add a new
API for this and fix the regression in os.urandom().
Date User Action Args
2016-06-07 13:16:35lemburgsetrecipients: + lemburg, rhettinger, doko, vstinner, larry, matejcik, ned.deily, alex, skrah, python-dev, martin.panter, ztane, dstufft, Lukasa, thomas-petazzoni, Colm Buckley
2016-06-07 13:16:35lemburglinkissue26839 messages
2016-06-07 13:16:34lemburgcreate