Re: email libraries: use byte or unicode strings?

On Nov 6, 2008, at 12:14 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
>> As I see it, there are 3 options:
>> 1. Hold up 3.0 until you get an API for the email package that  
>> handles
>> Unicode vs bytes issues gracefully
>> 2. Drop the email package entirely from 3.0, iterate on a 3.0  
>> version of
>> it on PyPI for a while, then add the cleaned up version in 3.1
>> 3. Keep the current version (issues and all) in 3.0, with fairly  
>> strong
>> warnings that the API may change in 3.1
>
> At this point I think our only option is essentially 3, keep what we  
> have warts and all.  When the precursor to the email package was  
> being developed (at that time, called mimelib), it was initially  
> done as a separate package and only folded into core when it was  
> stable and fairly widely used.
>
> For email-ng (or whatever we call it) we should follow the same  
> guidelines.  Eventually email-ng will be folded back into the core  
> and will replace the current email package.

Is 3.1 in general going to allow API-breaking changes from 3.0? That's  
fine with me if it is: it does make some sense to allow a "second  
chance" to get things really right.

But if that's not the case, wouldn't it make more sense to keep email  
out of the initial 3.0 release, rather than put a half-broken version  
in with special "we can totally change the API for the next release"  
dispensation?

James