On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 1:27 PM, R. David Murray rdmurray@bitdance.com wrote:
On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 at 22:17, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
I don't currently have an opinion on this backport proposal, but in regard to this argument: if we do not do any 2.x releases after 2.7, then over time the number of packages that can afford to drop 2.6 support will grow, yet many will need to retain 2.7 support for much longer.
I don't think the argument applies to 2.7 as much as it applied to earlier releases: 2.7 will have a life time of 18 months perhaps (I think we still need to decide formally against 2.8, and also decide when to make the last 2.7 bug fix release). There is some likelihood
I was under the impression that if 2.7 was the last release that it would be maintained (ie: bugfixed) until we decided 3.x uptake was "sufficient", and that that might be considerably longer than 18 months. If that is not the case, then what you say is true.
Is it even wort doing a 2.7 release? Isn't the effort better spent on 3.2 alone? (Note, these aren't rhetorical questions. It's well possible that there are good reasons for pushing along with 2.7. Maybe considering those reasons will also help answering questions about whether to backport things like nonlocal.)