Barry Warsaw wrote:
we may want to consider elaborating on the Python release cycle to include a gamma phase or a longer release candidate cycle.
Maybe there could be an "unstable" release phase that lasts for a whole release cycle. So you'd first release version 2.n as "unstable", and keep 2.(n-1) as the current "stable" release. Then when 2.(n+1) is ready, 2.n would become "stable" and 2.(n+1) would become the new "unstable".
(Feel free to substitute other terms for "stable" and "unstable" if you don't like them.)
That would give people plenty of warning and time to try things out with the new version.
This wouldn't actually be much different to what is done now, except for the naming. But by not officially blessing the latest release as current for a while, it might give less of an impression that stuff is being sprung on the community unawares.
OT1H I think there will always be people or projects that won't try anything until the gold release,
Well, at least they've had a chance to try it. If they don't take that chance, they don't have much ground for complaint.