On Tue, Dec 7, 2021 at 1:09 PM Steve Dower <steve.do...@python.org> wrote:
> On 12/7/2021 6:52 PM, Sebastian Berg wrote: > > One thing we once did in NumPy (for a runtime problem), was to > > intentionally break everyone at pre-release/dev time to point out what > > code needed fixing. Then flip the switch back at release time as to > > not break production. > > After a long enough time we enabled it for release mode. > > > > Not saying that it was nice, but it was the only alternative would have > > been to never fix it. > > I like this idea. We'd have to turn it back for RC, and ensure that it's > possible to have working code both before/after the change. We may be > getting enough usage during beta for it to be worthwhile, though we > still have the problem of knock-on effects (where e.g. until NumPy > works, nothing that depends on it can even begin testing). > Yeah, this sounds like a good approach *for things where the alternative is never to fix it*. -- --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido) *Pronouns: he/him **(why is my pronoun here?)* <http://feministing.com/2015/02/03/how-using-they-as-a-singular-pronoun-can-change-the-world/>
_______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/IC2GZWYK5QCBWNFRLSYZE3STEAU3VPBU/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
