Terry Reedy wrote:
Perhaps Python.org should have a release-announcement-only mailing list for
people who would not get the news any other way. And/or perhaps final
release announcements and security warnings could be made on the various
Python-application mail lists if not so done already.
Alt
"Raymond Hettinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Would it be possible to release a 2.3.4a that has just the fix over
> and
>> above the released version? In this case it turns out that the fix
> nearly
>> coincided with the release of 2.3.5 and 2.4.1. Would yo
> Would it be possible to release a 2.3.4a that has just the fix over
and
> above the released version? In this case it turns out that the fix
nearly
> coincided with the release of 2.3.5 and 2.4.1. Would you do an
> accelerated
> release if this had come up right after they were released?
Just
>> How will Python releases made in response to security bugs be done:
>> will they just include the security fix (rather than being taken from
>> CVS HEAD), without the usual alpha / beta testing cycle? Or what...?
Guido> On python.org, however, we tend to take the maintenance b
> How will Python releases made in response to security bugs be done: will
> they just include the security fix (rather than being taken from CVS
> HEAD), without the usual alpha / beta testing cycle? Or what...?
Depends where you get the release. *Vendors* (ActiveState, Red Hat,
Ubuntu, Debian,
On 2005 Feb 05, at 16:49, Jeremy Hylton wrote:
On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 02:31:26 -0500, Raymond Hettinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
[Anthony]
While this is undoubtedly a bug fix, I'm not sure that it should be
backported - it will break people's code that is "working" now
(albeit
in a faulty way). Wha
On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 02:31:26 -0500, Raymond Hettinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [Anthony]
> > While this is undoubtedly a bug fix, I'm not sure that it should be
> > backported - it will break people's code that is "working" now (albeit
> > in a faulty way). What do people think?
>
> I concur --
On 2005 Feb 05, at 07:43, Anthony Baxter wrote:
Ok, so here's the state of play: 2.3.5 is currently aimed for next
Tuesday,
but there's an outstanding issue - the new copy code appears to have
broken something, see www.python.org/sf/1114776 for the gory details.
I'm completely out of time this wee
