Steve Holden wrote: > Barry Warsaw wrote: [...] >> I stand by my opinion about the right way to do this. I also think that >> a 3.1 release 6 months after 3.0 is perfectly fine and serves our users >> just as well. >> > +1 > I should have been more explicit. I think that stuff that was slated for removal in 3.0 should be removed as soon as possible, and a micro release is fine for that.
ISTM that if we really cared about our users we would have got this right before we released 3.0. Since we clearly didn't, it behooves us make sure that any 3.1 release isn't a( repeat performance. There are changes that should clearly have been made before 3.0 saw the light of day, which are now being discussed for incorporation. If those changes were *supposed* to be made before 3.0 came out then they should be made as soon as possible. Waiting for a major release only encourages people to use them, and once they get use further changes will be seen as introducing incompatibilities that we have promised would not occur. So it seems that the operator functions should stand not on the order of their going, but depart. While a quick 3.1 release might look like the best compromise for now, it cannot then be followed with a quick 3.2 release, and then we are in the territory Martin warned about. Quality is crucial after a poor initial release: we have to engender confidence in the user base that we are not dicking them around with ill-thought-out changes. So on balance I think it might be better to live with the known inadequacies of 3.0, making small changes for 3.0.1 and possibly ignoring the policy that says we don't remove features in point releases (since they apparently should have been taken out of 3.0 but weren't). But this is only going to work if the quality of 3.1 is considerably higher than 3.0, making it worth the wait. I think that both 3.0 and 2.6 were rushed releases. 2.6 showed it in the inclusion (later recognizable as somewhat ill-advised so late in the day) of multiprocessing; 3.0 shows it in the very fact that this discussion has become necessary. So we face an important turning point: is 3.1 going to be serious production quality or not? Given that we have just been presented with a fabulous resource that could help improve delivered quality (I am talking about snakebite.org, of course) we might be well-advised to use the 3.1 release as a demonstration of how much it is going to improve the quality of delivered releases. regards Steve -- Steve Holden +1 571 484 6266 +1 800 494 3119 Holden Web LLC http://www.holdenweb.com/ _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
