On 7/14/06, Anthony Baxter email@example.com wrote:
On Friday 14 July 2006 16:39, Neal Norwitz wrote:
Remember I also tried to push for more features to go in early? That would have given more time for external testing. Still features are coming in. Python developers weren't happy about having to get things in earlier. I don't see a practical way to implement what you propose (see Anthony's comments).
Following up on this point: Given the number of "just-this-one-more-thing-please" we've _already_ had since the b1 feature freeze, do you really except that 90 days of feature freeze is feasible? And if there's not going to be a feature freeze, there's hardly any point to people doing testing until there _is_ a feature freeze, is there? Oh, great, my code works with 2.5b1. Oops. 2.5b9 added a new feature that broke my code, but I didn't test with that.
Maybe the basic question is right, but the emphasis needs to be changed. If we had a rule that said the final release was 90 days after the last submission that wasn't to fix a regression, we'd ask "Is this feature important enough to warrant delaying the release until three months from now?" I'm not sure what I think, but it doesn't seem like an implausible policy.
Anthony Baxter firstname.lastname@example.org It's never too late to have a happy childhood. _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/jeremy%40alum.mit.edu