Nick Coghlan wrote:
> Steve Holden wrote:
>> In which case doesn't it make more sense to use the existing mechanism
>> of PEP 356 (Release Schedule)? If something isn't listed in there
>> (even without dates) then there are no current plans to release it,
>> and that tells the reader everything
Steve Holden wrote:
> In which case doesn't it make more sense to use the existing mechanism
> of PEP 356 (Release Schedule)? If something isn't listed in there (even
> without dates) then there are no current plans to release it, and that
> tells the reader everything they need to know.
>
> At
Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> Terry Reedy writes:
>
> > "Stephen J. Turnbull" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > | The impression that many people (including python-dev regulars) have
> > | that there is a "policy" of "support" for both the current release
> >
"Stephen J. Turnbull" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
| FWIW, after Martin's explanation, and considering the annoyance of
| keeping updates sync'ed (can PEPs be amended after acceptance, or only
| superseded by a new PEP, like IETF RFCs?),
Informational PEPs often ge
Terry Reedy writes:
> "Stephen J. Turnbull" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> | The impression that many people (including python-dev regulars) have
> | that there is a "policy" of "support" for both the current release
> | (2.5) and the (still very widely used)
"Stephen J. Turnbull" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
| The impression that many people (including python-dev regulars) have
| that there is a "policy" of "support" for both the current release
| (2.5) and the (still very widely used) previous release (2.4) is a
| real
> > I'm all in favor of formalizing a policy of when Python releases
> > are produced, and what Python releases, and what kinds of changes
> > they may contain. However, such a policy should be addressed
> > primarily to contributors, as a guidance, not to users, as
> > a promise. So I have pr
"Martin v. Löwis" writes:
> I'm all in favor of formalizing a policy of when Python releases
> are produced, and what Python releases, and what kinds of changes
> they may contain. However, such a policy should be addressed
> primarily to contributors, as a guidance, not to users, as
> a prom
> Python can dispose of a raft of bugs present only in the older
> versions with WONTFIX at release of a new stable version (after
> double-checking that they don't exist in the stable version).
I'm all in favor of formalizing a policy of when Python releases
are produced, and what Python releases
Terry Reedy writes:
> This strikes me as an improvement, but 'maintain' is close to
> 'support' and seems to make a promise that might also have
> unintended legal consequences. But that is what your legal consel
> is for.
Unilateral statements on a web page do not constitute a contract.
Impl
>> Why do you need such a statement?
>
> I think Fedora might want it, per recent discussions on fedora-devel-list.
In that case, I would rather have somebody official of the Fedora list
state the request explicitly, than basing it on hearsay.
> "The Python Software Foundation maintains the curr
On Saturday 12 May 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Since there is (generally?) an attempt to make one last bug fix
> release of the previous version after the next major version is
> released, should that be mentioned? To make it concrete, I
> believe shortly after 2.5.0 was released the final bu
"Martin v. Löwis" writes:
> However, I would prefer to not use the verb "support" at all. We (the
> PSF) don't provide any technical support for *any* version ever
> released: '''PSF is making Python available to Licensee on an "AS IS"
> basis. PSF MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES [...]
"Tony Nelson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
At 12:58 AM +0200 5/12/07, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
|>However, I would prefer to not use the verb "support" at all.
agreed
|"The Python Software Foundation maintains the current stable major
|release of Python. By "mainta
Tony> "The Python Software Foundation maintains the current stable major
Tony> release of Python. By "maintains" we mean that the PSF will
Tony> produce bug fix releases of that version, currently Python 2.5.
Tony> We have released patches for earlier versions as necessary, such
At 12:58 AM +0200 5/12/07, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
>> "The Python Software Foundation officially supports the current
>> stable major release of Python. By "supports" we mean that the PSF
>> will produce bug fix releases of this version, currently Python 2.5.
>> We may release patches for earlier v
> "The Python Software Foundation officially supports the current
> stable major release of Python. By "supports" we mean that the PSF
> will produce bug fix releases of this version, currently Python 2.5.
> We may release patches for earlier versions if necessary, such as to
> fix securi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On May 10, 2007, at 6:46 PM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
>> "The Python Software Foundation officially supports the current
>> stable major release and one prior major release. Currently, Python
>> 2.5 and 2.4 are officially supported.
>
> If you take "of
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On May 10, 2007, at 12:53 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
> This strikes me as a bit over-officious (the 'officially' adds
> nothing to
> me except a bit of stuffiness).
>
> Worse, it seems wrong and hence, to me, misleading. The current de
> facto
> poli
> "The Python Software Foundation officially supports the current
> stable major release and one prior major release. Currently, Python
> 2.5 and 2.4 are officially supported.
If you take "officially supported" to mean "there will be further bugfix
releases", then no: 2.4 is not anymore officia
On Thursday 10 May 2007, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> This came up in a different context. I originally emailed this to
> the python.org admins, but Aahz rightly points out that we should
> first agree here that this actually /is/ our official stance.
+1
-Fred
--
Fred L. Drake, Jr.
_
"Barry Warsaw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
| -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
| Hash: SHA1
|
| This came up in a different context. I originally emailed this to
| the python.org admins, but Aahz rightly points out that we should
| first agree here that this actu
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
This came up in a different context. I originally emailed this to
the python.org admins, but Aahz rightly points out that we should
first agree here that this actually /is/ our official stance.
- -snip-
We have an "official unofficial" p
23 matches
Mail list logo
