Path: csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!usenet.pasdenom.info!aioe.org!news.stack.nl!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed5.news.xs4all.nl!xs4all!post.news.xs4all.nl!not-for-mail Return-Path: X-Original-To: python-list@python.org Delivered-To: python-list@mail.python.org X-Spam-Status: OK 0.000 X-Spam-Evidence: '*H*': 1.00; '*S*': 0.00; 'bug': 0.02; 'defaults': 0.07; 'received:verizon.net': 0.07; 'terry': 0.07; 'tests,': 0.07; 'versions.': 0.07; 'python': 0.08; 'bug,': 0.09; 'received:80.91': 0.09; 'received:80.91.229': 0.09; 'received:80.91.229.12': 0.09; 'received:gmane.org': 0.09; 'received:list': 0.09; 'received:lo.gmane.org': 0.09; 'subject:python': 0.10; ';-)': 0.12; '2.7': 0.13; 'bugs,': 0.16; 'reedy': 0.16; 'release?': 0.16; 'sajip': 0.16; 'subject:limitation': 0.16; 'subject:logging': 0.16; 'vinay': 0.16; 'wrote:': 0.16; 'jan': 0.19; 'header:In- Reply-To:1': 0.22; 'code': 0.25; 'pm,': 0.26; 'fix': 0.27; 'asking': 0.27; 'seem': 0.29; 'differently': 0.30; 'chris': 0.30; 'subject:?': 0.30; 'actually': 0.32; 'does': 0.32; 'idea': 0.32; "isn't": 0.32; 'header:User-Agent:1': 0.33; 'to:addr:python-list': 0.33; 'agree': 0.33; 'there': 0.33; 'header:X-Complaints-To:1': 0.34; 'but': 0.37; 'received:org': 0.37; 'another': 0.37; 'think': 0.38; 'option': 0.39; 'else': 0.39; 'subject:: ': 0.39; 'change': 0.40; 'to:addr:python.org': 0.40; 'design': 0.61; 'decision,': 0.67; 'design.': 0.73; 'policy,': 0.77; '3.3': 0.91; 'achievable': 0.91 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: python-list@python.org From: Terry Reedy Subject: Re: python logging filter limitation, looks intentional? Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 19:50:29 -0500 References: <4F1421C3.6060806@simplistix.co.uk> <1326726505.66259.YahooMailNeo@web25803.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <4F146EFD.8090102@simplistix.co.uk> <1326756115.24713.YahooMailNeo@web25806.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <4F151017.6020201@simplistix.co.uk> <1326797302.16852.YahooMailNeo@web25806.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <4F173369.9010501@simplistix.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: pool-74-109-121-73.phlapa.fios.verizon.net User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0 In-Reply-To: <4F173369.9010501@simplistix.co.uk> X-BeenThere: python-list@python.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: General discussion list for the Python programming language List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Newsgroups: comp.lang.python Message-ID: Lines: 26 NNTP-Posting-Host: 2001:888:2000:d::a6 X-Trace: 1326934249 news.xs4all.nl 6847 [2001:888:2000:d::a6]:37103 X-Complaints-To: abuse@xs4all.nl Xref: x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.lang.python:19110 On 1/18/2012 4:02 PM, Chris Withers wrote: > On 17/01/2012 10:48, Vinay Sajip wrote: > How about an option that defaults to "backwards compatibility mode" for > Python 2.7, flipped the other way in 3.3? 2.7 only gets bug fixes, and this does not seem to be one. >> It's not a bug, because it's like that by design. I understand that >> you don't agree with that particular design decision, but it's out >> there now. What you're asking for isn't unreasonable, but not >> achievable without a change in behaviour. > > See above ;-) > >> I don't want people to have to code differently for Python 3.3 and for >> older versions. This is not a general policy, else we would never add new features ;-) Do you plan to keep logging feature-frozen forever, or just for another release? (I actually think is a good idea to fix bugs, tests, and docs first.) -- Terry Jan Reedy