Last chance on whether my tier 3 proposal make sense! I will take silence as acceptance and plan to convert any current tier 2 platform with a single core dev to tier 3 and then ask the SC to approve/reject the list of platforms. I will also update the PEP about expectations of when things must be considered stable before b1, else a warning goes out that a platform risks being dropped in the RC (regardless of tier).

I will also be filling out the tiers to include the vendor, but I will be using `unknown` instead of `*` since I haven't come across the latter online while I come across the former regularly (e.g.

On Fri, Apr 1, 2022 at 6:50 PM Victor Stinner <> wrote:
On Fri, Apr 1, 2022 at 11:19 PM Christian Heimes <> wrote:
> How about:
> * a buildbot is required. For a transition period a public CI system,
> that runs Python's test suite at least once per day, is also acceptable.
> * at least one active contributor who acts as a point of contact,
> monitors CI and provides fixes in a timely fashion.

Sadly, I'm not sure that a regular contributor is enough to get fixes
merged even fixes are written. Maybe it's better to require one core
dev per Tier 3 platform.

What if tomorrow someone sets up a MinGW buildbot. Is it enough to
promote MinGW as Tier 3? There are many MinGW patches awaiting in the
bug tracker for *years* and nobody is available to review and merged
them. (I didn't check recently, maybe some of them have been merged in
the meanwhile?)

For the buildbot, IMO it's important that the whole test suite pass.
I'm fine with skipping a large number of tests. But a single failure
makes a buildbot really annoying, barely usuable, because buildbots
are unable to say if a change adds more errors than previously. It's a
boolean: either all tests pass, or "at least one test fails": you have
to dig into logs to know the exact number :-(

Night gathers, and now my watch begins. It shall not end until my death.
python-committers mailing list --
To unsubscribe send an email to
Message archived at
Code of Conduct: