<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 08/28/2015 08:44 AM, Brett Cannon
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAP1=2W74hwUxC_bMXP-VSSNb7yOa_vj=KtrPBJ=UjKZafKxxJg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">On Fri, 28 Aug 2015 at 08:35 Yury Selivanov <<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:yselivanov.ml@gmail.com"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:yselivanov.ml@gmail.com">yselivanov.ml@gmail.com</a></a>>
wrote:<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Unfortunately,
separating it from the standard library is something<br>
that I don't think we can do so late in the 3.5 release
candidates<br>
process.<br>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Ultimately it's Larry's call, but I don't see why we
couldn't. If we were talking about something as low-level as
the urllib package then I would agree, but beyond its own
tests is there anything in the stdlib that depends on
asyncio?<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
I'm flexible here. My concern is shipping high-quality software.
Removing an entire package outright, even at such a late date, is
pretty low-risk. But before I'd allow it, you'd have to get a BDFL
pronouncement (or BDFL-delegate pronouncement).<br>
<br>
<br>
<i>/arry</i><br>
</body>
</html>