On 09/06/2010 13:56, Steve Holden wrote:
Paul Moore wrote:
On 9 June 2010 07:26, Chris McDonough<chr...@plope.com> wrote:
On Wed, 2010-06-09 at 01:15 -0400, Fred Drake wrote:
On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 12:30 AM, Senthil Kumaran<orsent...@gmail.com> wrote:
it would still be a good idea to
introduce some of them in minor releases in 2.7. I know, this
deviating from the process, but it could be an option considering that
2.7 is the last of 2.x release.
I disagree.
If there are going to be features going into *any* post 2.7.0 version,
there's no reason not to increment the revision number to 2.8,
Since there's also a well-advertised decision that 2.7 will be the
last 2.x, such a 2.8 isn't planned. But there's no reason to violate
the no-features-in-bugfix-releases policy. We've seen violations
cause trouble and confusion, but we've not seen it be successful.
The policy wasn't arbitrary; let's stick to it.
It might be useful to copy the identifiers and URLs of all the backport
request tickets into some other repository, or to create some unique
state in roundup for these. Rationale: it's almost certain that if the
existing Python core maintainers won't evolve Python 2.X past 2.7, some
other group will, and losing existing context for that would kinda suck.
Personally, as a user of Python, I'm already getting tired of the "we
won't let Python 2.x die" arguments. Unless and until some other group
comes along and says they definitely plan to pick up Python 2.x
development (and set up or agree shared usage of all the relevant
infrastructure, bug tracker, developers list, VCS, etc) I see the core
developers' decision as made. 2.7 is the last Python 2.x release, and
all further development will be on 3.x.
On that basis I'm +1 on Alexandre's proposal. A 3rd party planning on
working on a 2.8 release (not that I think such a party currently
exists) can step up and extract the relevant tickets for their later
reference if they feel the need. Let's not stop moving forward for the
convenience of a hypothetical 2.8 development team.
How does throwing away information represent "moving forward"?
I'm inclined to agree. There is no *need* to close these tickets now.
I have to say I am surprised by the current lack of momentum behind 3.x,
but I do know users who consider that their current investment in the
2.x series is unlikely to migrate to 3.x in the next five years, and it
would be strange if they didn't continue to develop 2.x (including
backporting some 3.x features).
Who is the 'they' in your last sentence here? It seems to imply the
'users'... Certainly no-one specific (neither individual nor group) have
stepped up and said they will continue to develop Python 2.x. Even if
they did it is not clear that they would use the python.org
infrastructure to do it. The Python core developers (basically) *have*
moved on and are unlikely to further develop 2.x. We'll see though, it's
all speculation at the moment.
All the best,
Michael
I don't see why we have to make such work harder than it need be.
regards
Steve
--
http://www.ironpythoninaction.com/
http://www.voidspace.org.uk/blog
READ CAREFULLY. By accepting and reading this email you agree, on behalf of
your employer, to release me from all obligations and waivers arising from any
and all NON-NEGOTIATED agreements, licenses, terms-of-service, shrinkwrap,
clickwrap, browsewrap, confidentiality, non-disclosure, non-compete and
acceptable use policies (”BOGUS AGREEMENTS”) that I have entered into with your
employer, its partners, licensors, agents and assigns, in perpetuity, without
prejudice to my ongoing rights and privileges. You further represent that you
have the authority to release me from any BOGUS AGREEMENTS on behalf of your
employer.
_______________________________________________
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
