[python-committers] Re: A urlparse regression in minor version

OK, let's revert this for 3.8.2. I will make 3.8.2rc2 with this to highlight the revert and get some testing in.

-- Best regards, Łukasz Langa

On 16 Feb 2020, at 19:31, Senthil Kumaran senthil@uthcode.com wrote:

 I have created the PRs for the revert in 3.8.2 and 3.7.7

https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/18525 (3.8) - Acceptance definitely depends on the RM ( Łukasz' s call) and I will support it. https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/18526 (3.7) - Let this be reverted only if 3.8 gets reverted.

@Ned -

...

Note that we strongly imply that we sanely handle them by offering the "scheme=" parameter to urlparse.

It is a good idea. I will dig deeper with the help of test cases for 3.8. ( At the moment, given the tests cases the only test case which obviously fails the expectation in 'localhost:8000') But it seems that in the bug report, it was discussed and analyzed before the call was taken to simplify the logic of parsing support. So, for 3.9 use case, we can revisit this decision separately and i will account for the points that you have brought up.

If do not end up reverting in 3.8.2 - at the moment, my approach will be to document the behavior and encourage users to make sure that URL's have a scheme for the valid parsing behavior between 3.7, 3.8, and 3.9

...

On Sun, Feb 16, 2020 at 4:21 AM Antoine Pitrou antoine@python.org wrote:

FWIW, I agree with Senthil here. A slight behaviour change in 3.9 is fine, especially in an area where the "right" semantics are not immediately obvious. What we want to avoid is breaking behaviour changes in bugfix releases.

Regards

Antoine.

Le 16/02/2020 à 13:13, Senthil Kumaran a écrit :

...

On Sun, Feb 16, 2020 at 2:20 AM Ned Deily mailto:nad@python.org> wrote:

For 3.9.0, I recommend we reconsider this change (temporarily
reverting it) and consider whether an API change to accommodate the
various use cases would be better

For 3.9. - I am ready to defend the patch even at the cost of the breaking of the parsing of undefined behavior. We should keep it. The patch simplifies a lot of corner cases and fixes the reported bugs. We don't guarantee backward compatibility between major versions, so I assume users will be careful when relying upon this undefined behavior and will take corrective action on their side before upgrading to 3.9.

We want patch releases to be backward compatible. That was the user-complaint.

Thanks, Senthil

---

python-committers mailing list -- python-committers@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-committers-leave@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-committers.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-committers@python.org/message/S... Code of Conduct: https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct/

---

python-committers mailing list -- python-committers@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-committers-leave@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-committers.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-committers@python.org/message/P... Code of Conduct: https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct/

---

python-committers mailing list -- python-committers@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-committers-leave@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-committers.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-committers@python.org/message/C... Code of Conduct: https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct/