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
| (2.5) and the
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 the
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 they
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.
Implied
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,
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 promise.
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 problems
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
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) previous
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 get
-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
policy is
-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 officially
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 versions if
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
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 maintains we
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 [...].'''
Of
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 bug
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
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. fdrake at
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 officially
20 matches
Mail list logo
