On 7/13/06, Fredrik Lundh email@example.com wrote:
Neal Norwitz wrote:
Given that several people here think we should lengthen the schedule in some way, I suspect we will do something. I'm not really against it, but I don't think it will provide much benefit either. A few more bugs will be fixed since we have more time.
you're still missing the point of this thread: it isn't bugs in the core Python distribution that's the problem, it's compatibility with third- party modules and applications.
a longer beta period gives *external* developers more time to catch up, and results in less work for the end users.
This is the part I don't get. For the external developers, if they care about compatibility, why aren't they testing periodically, regardless of alpha/beta releases? How often is the python build broken or otherwise unusable? On Unix there's no more or less work to grab a tarball whether it's a nightly or a release. For Windows it's definitely easier to wait for a release. If there was an installable windows version made by the buildbots, would that mean there would be more testing?
Is part of your point that these developers only care about something called "release" and they won't start testing before then? If that's the case why don't we start making (semi-)automated alpha releases every month? That will give people lots more time. Somehow I don't think it will make a difference. People mostly work on schedules or should I say avoid schedules. Give them 5 months and they will still wait to the last minute.
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).