Hello, and thanks for your contribution!

I'm a bot set up to make sure that the project can legally accept this contribution by verifying everyone involved has signed the PSF contributor agreement (CLA).

CLA Missing

Our records indicate the following people have not signed the CLA:

@Anj-A

For legal reasons we need all the people listed to sign the CLA before we can look at your contribution. Please follow the steps outlined in the CPython devguide to rectify this issue.

If you have recently signed the CLA, please wait at least one business day
before our records are updated.

You can check yourself to see if the CLA has been received.

Thanks again for the contribution, we look forward to reviewing it!

@Anj-A
Are you sure this is the right BPO issue number? Looks like it should be under bpo-38652

Also, if you could update the PR title to be more specifically descriptive of the changes made, that would be helpful. The actual changes made are correct though.

The only thing remaining after that is for the CLA to be signed and processed, but that usually only takes around 24-48 hours.

Have signed the CLA and updated the title as suggested.

Hi, could you please get this PR approved if everything looks fine? @1st1 @asvetlov

Thanks @Anj-A for the PR 🌮🎉.. I'm working now to backport this PR to: 3.8.
🐍🍒⛏🤖

I'm having trouble backporting to 3.8. Reason: 'Error 110 while writing to socket. Connection timed out.'. Please retry by removing and re-adding the needs backport to 3.8 label.

Thanks!

The fix should not be backported to 3.8, that's perfectly fine if 3.8 still states that BufferedProtocol is still provisional.
Changing something in 3.8.1 is worse than keeping the status quo until 3.9

@asvetlov

The fix should not be backported to 3.8, that's perfectly fine if 3.8 still states that BufferedProtocol is still provisional.

Okay, I'll remove the backport label then.

Does this also apply to other provisional APIs as well, as in they remain provisional for the major version they were released on?

I doubt if we have a strong rule for the provisional status cleanup.
I only recall discussions for removal something in 3.X, and never for 3.X.Y.