On 4 March 2014 20:16, <mar...@v.loewis.de> wrote: > > Quoting Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com>: > >> If you don't want to do an rc3 despite the cherry picked changes since >> rc2, then you need to make it easy for people to test the changes >> directly from the release branch. An opaque intermittently updated >> tarball is not acceptable when none of our infrastructure is designed >> to work that way. I was OK with just the tarball when I assumed you >> would an rc3 if non-trivial defects were found in rc2. If that's not >> the case, then we *need* a public mirror of your release clone. > > > Another rc or not - I expect to see a 3.4.1 release *really* shortly after > the 3.4.0 release. So except for issues where Python does not work at all, > any glitches that remain in the code can be fixed in the bug fix release.
Right, but I don't see the need to rush 3.4.0 itself - these were definitely edge cases (that's why our test suite missed them), but they were a result of two of the deeper changes in 3.4 (the import system changes and the introspection changes). Mike and Armin found, investigated and reported them when testing on rc2 turned up a couple of relatively obscure and hard to diagnose failures in their own test suites, and it seems discourteous to then turn around and put pressure on them to double check the fix in our original release time frame rather than granting the extra two weeks a 3rd rc would provide not just to us, but to anyone doing third party testing. (Barry and Matthias already confirmed we can do that much while still having the final release make it directly in Ubuntu 14.04) Maybe I'm being overly conservative, and if Larry, you, and Ned are all comfortable with the idea of going straight to a final release from here, I'm not going to argue further (since you're the ones that would incur the additional work from an additional release). I just wanted to be clear that I'd be more comfortable with either a 3rd release candidate given the pip installation, pkgutil & type slot introspection changes I'm aware of, or at least the ability for people to test the in-development final release using the usual processes documented in the devguide. Regards, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
