On 28 August 2015 at 00:25, Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com> wrote: > I'd suggest including a clearer motivation there: > > Note: The asyncio package has been included in the standard > library on a provisional basis, and thus may gain new APIs and > capabilities in maintenance releases as it matures. Backwards > incompatible changes may occur if deemed absolutely necessary by the > core developers.
I'm happy with a statement like this offering additional guidance, but I think that formally we should stick with the current provisional-or-not situation (with asyncio remaining provisional for another release, if the asyncio devs feel that's needed). Ultimately, end users only really have two choices - use a library or not - so adding extra levels of "provisionalness" actually complicates their choice rather than simplifying it. Paul _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com