Https and proxy support in urllib2

[John Arbash Meinel]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> On 08/05/2009 08:18 PM, Martin Pool wrote:
>> 2009/8/6 Toshio Kuratomi <a.badger at gmail.com>:
>>> The important facts from the bottom of that page are that RHEL5 is
>>> supported until March 31, 2014 and that RHEL6 isn't out yet.
>> So what should we conclude from that?
>>
>> Perhaps that even development releases should work on python2.4 for a
>> bit longer, at least until RHEL6 is out and until other important
>> platforms have also moved forward?
>>
> This is what I would favor as an end user.  As even more of an end-user,
> I'd put heavy emphasis on the "at least".  Some platforms move forward
> at a slow pace because the people who install them want to follow a
> conservative update strategy WRT their OS.  This means that they won't
> jump to the next release immediately when it comes out.  Meanwhile the
> people who use the machines that the IT department has installed have a
> need to move to the latest bazaar because of compatibility with another
> project or in order to run a new app that only works with the new API.
> The longer this is possible, the better for the end-user.

Of course, if they are capable of installing the latest bzr, they are
probably equally capable of installing a newer version of python. Both
python and bzr can be easily installed inside a user's home directory if
they don't have system access.

So saying that the latest of X needs to run on a really old Y because
then it can be installed on this un-updated system, is a bit of a stretch.

That said, there are only a couple small benefits if we switched away
from 2.4 compatibility. (try/finally inside generators, 'with'
statements, and try/except/finally come to mind.)

> 
>> Perhaps it would be acceptable to have some beta/development releases
>> that only work on Red Hat's own development branch, but it would be a
>> shame to do a supported release that does not yet work on any
>> supported release of Fedora/RH.
>>
> <nod>.  The ratio of adoption of bazaar beta/development release to the
> RHEL (or Ubuntu LTS, etc) is an important consideration, though.  What
> would be painful is if some projects move to a new branch format or API
> supported by the beta/development release of bazaar and people who want
> to work with them or use that plugin are unable to because the version
> that runs on their platform cannot interoperate.
> 
> Also note, the RHEL6 beta isn't even out yet so trying to gage how long
> it will be until RHEL6 is released is going to be imprecise speculation.
> 
> -Toshio
> 

John
=:->
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Cygwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAkp7KZIACgkQJdeBCYSNAAOjYQCfS78R+KmPBupSOAvMhqg3xCgm
1PoAoLnbY2wxguTCW3BC1RlHmtLxWLe7
=cHGt
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----