I believe we push towards accepting new paradigms like python 3. If bugs were found on libraries used in older context were probably because there wasn't a need of particular feature. & that is how eventually a software becomes a legacy. There are times when we might want to re-use this library or legacy software, then it make sense to solve the bug as well as port it to new version. Timeline for anything build on top-of-any-language doesn't necessarily have to cope up with evolving language unless needed.
> On 16-Mar-2015, at 4:53 am, Mario Figueiredo <mar...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Sun, 15 Mar 2015 12:05:21 -0700, John Nagle <na...@animats.com> > wrote: > >> On 3/14/2015 1:00 AM, Marko Rauhamaa wrote: >> >> Some of the bugs I listed are so easy to hit that I suspect those >> packages aren't used much. Those bugs should have been found years >> ago. Fixed, even. I shouldn't be discovering them in 2015. >> >> I appreciate all the effort put in by developers in fixing these >> problems. Python 3 is still a long way from being ready for prime >> time, though. >> > > What do you mean a long way? Is this a scaremongering tactic? Some > little FUD to poison the minds of anyone thinking moving to Python 3? > Or you just chose your words poorly? > > Because 3rd-party packages don't define whether the language is ready > for production or not and the bugs you found on the standard library > shouldn't be much different from other bugs found onPython 2 during > Python 2 prime time. > > What makes you think your anedoctal bugs constitute any sort of > evidence this programming language isn't ready to be used by the > public? > > -- > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
