On Fri, 06 Jun 2014 10:05:52 -0400, Antoine Pitrou email@example.com wrote:
Le 06/06/2014 07:00, R. David Murray a écrit :
I don't have any opinion on the workflow.
My understanding is that part of the purpose of the "provisional" designation is to allow faster evolution (read: fixing) of an API before the library becomes non-provisional. Thus I agree with Guido here, and will be doing something similar with at least one of the minor provisional email API features in 3.4.2 (unless I miss the cutoff again ... :(
I would personally distinguish API fixes (compatibility-breaking changes) from feature additions (new APIs).
It doesn't look like the PEP directly addresses API changes in maintenance releases, and I suppose that should be fixed.
I specifically want to fix this API before someone depends on it working the wrong way, which they would have to if I left it alone for the whole of the 3.4 series. (Issue 21091 for the curious.)