Mailman 3 3.0.1/3.1.0 summary - Python-Dev

newer
python 3.0, tp_compare not used...

3.0.1/3.1.0 summary

older
Financial aid for PyCon 2009 is...

Brett Cannon

30 Jan 2009 30 Jan '09

3:59 a.m.

This is my attempt to summarize what everyone has been saying so we can get this resolved.

...

From what I can tell, most people like the idea of doing a 3.0.1 release ASAP (like "in a week or so" fast) with the stuff that should have been removed from 3.0.0 in the first place removed.

People also seem to support doing a 3.1 release April/May where new stuff (e.g. io in C, new shelve back-end for sqlite3) is introduced to the rest of the world. This timeline has the benefit of allowing us to do an alpha release at PyCon and puts us at a six month release cycle which does not portray 3.0 or 3.1 as rushed releases. The sticky points I see are: 1. Barry, who is the release manager for 3.0.1, does not like the idea of the cruft that is being proposed removed from 3.0.1. Personally I say we continue to peer pressure him as I think a new major release is not like our typical minor release, but I am not about to force Barry to go against what he thinks is reasonable unless I am willing to step up as release manager (and I am not since I simply don't have the time to learn the process fast enough along with just a lack of time with other Python stuff). 2. Do we label 3.0.x as experimental? I say no since it isn't experimental; we basically had some bugs slip through that happen to be compatibility problems that were overlooked. I for one never viewed 3.0.x as experimental, just not the best we could necessarily do without more input from the community and our own experience with 3.x in general. Let's see if we can get these two points squared away so we can get 3.0.1 in whatever state it is meant to be in out the door quickly. -Brett

Show replies by date

Terry Reedy

30 Jan 30 Jan

4:44 a.m.

Brett Cannon wrote:

...

This is my attempt to summarize what everyone has been saying so we can get this resolved.

...
From what I can tell, most people like the idea of doing a 3.0.1 release ASAP (like "in a week or so" fast) with the stuff that should have been removed from 3.0.0 in the first place removed.

People also seem to support doing a 3.1 release April/May where new stuff (e.g. io in C, new shelve back-end for sqlite3) is introduced to the rest of the world. This timeline has the benefit of allowing us to do an alpha release at PyCon and puts us at a six month release cycle which does not portray 3.0 or 3.1 as rushed releases.

The sticky points I see are:

1. Barry, who is the release manager for 3.0.1, does not like the idea of the cruft that is being proposed removed from 3.0.1. Personally I say we continue to peer pressure him as I think a new major release is not like our typical minor release, but I am not about to force Barry to go against what he thinks is reasonable unless I am willing to step up as release manager (and I am not since I simply don't have the time to learn the process fast enough along with just a lack of time with other Python stuff).

While I prefer cruft removal now, I will, for the same reason, accept and use whatever whatever Barry delivers.

...

2. Do we label 3.0.x as experimental? I say no since it isn't experimental; we basically had some bugs slip through that happen to be compatibility problems that were overlooked. I for one never viewed 3.0.x as experimental, just not the best we could necessarily do without more input from the community and our own experience with 3.x in general.

It is normal for true x.0 releases to be slightly flakey. Experienced users typically wait for x.1 (or SP1) releases for building production systems. I understand that 'normal' is below Python's usual high standards, but it is not a tragedy ;-).

...

Let's see if we can get these two points squared away so we can get 3.0.1 in whatever state it is meant to be in out the door quickly.

+1 Terry

"Martin v. Löwis"

5:53 a.m.

...

1. Barry, who is the release manager for 3.0.1, does not like the idea of the cruft that is being proposed removed from 3.0.1.

I don't think he actually said that (in fact, I think he said the opposite). It would be good if he clarified, though. Regards, Martin

Barry Warsaw

4:03 p.m.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Jan 30, 2009, at 12:53 AM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:

...

...
1. Barry, who is the release manager for 3.0.1, does not like the idea of the cruft that is being proposed removed from 3.0.1.

I don't think he actually said that (in fact, I think he said the opposite). It would be good if he clarified, though.

To clarify: cruft that should have been removed 3.0 is fine to remove for 3.0.1, for some definition of "should have been". Barry -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin) iQCVAwUBSYMkxXEjvBPtnXfVAQIqtgP+Mra/z5nLY5SU56cw0JjgBwCVY1N3060K TSG90E4R+JpCsXRD7sjf2UfSAzKAGKz6gYja3hnt5awzhnCJMacgN0tvXNaAmuYi b7Qb6N4oV3izDGZPl3x0EO3DGimov2Nq8hCsEZbYnNd3U62MwRlzpW+FJbFJlZHO VR1jiVWX8Ig= =p0VE -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Mark Dickinson

4:50 p.m.

On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 4:03 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:

...

To clarify: cruft that should have been removed 3.0 is fine to remove for 3.0.1, for some definition of "should have been".

Just to double check, can I take this as a green light to continue with the cmp removal (http://bugs.python.org/issue1717) for 3.0.1? Mark

Barry Warsaw

31 Jan 31 Jan

1:44 p.m.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Jan 30, 2009, at 11:50 AM, Mark Dickinson wrote:

...

On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 4:03 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:

...
To clarify: cruft that should have been removed 3.0 is fine to remove for 3.0.1, for some definition of "should have been".

Just to double check, can I take this as a green light to continue with the cmp removal (http://bugs.python.org/issue1717) for 3.0.1?

Yep, go ahead. Barry -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin) iQCVAwUBSYRVrHEjvBPtnXfVAQK9SQQAiJct3mWt/+ZIOkI7DDRoBdz8yFvrmbLX 6AnbW+owvnnlzB9QX5PyDfTaTJa5pLJuoiWYRb7vCzxH1daW9KuFvF9qnaYXUhiO TLkyaO/R40aarB79NkE6J8wyRjYRyMoZgz10/GzxWkQgvTg38ESeKh3b6YRyph0N uo18odqAGEs= =QDP8 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Brett Cannon

30 Jan 30 Jan

6:56 p.m.

On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 08:03, Barry Warsaw wrote:

...

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1

On Jan 30, 2009, at 12:53 AM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:

...
...
1. Barry, who is the release manager for 3.0.1, does not like the idea of the cruft that is being proposed removed from 3.0.1.

I don't think he actually said that (in fact, I think he said the opposite). It would be good if he clarified, though.

To clarify: cruft that should have been removed 3.0 is fine to remove for 3.0.1, for some definition of "should have been".

Great! Then should we start planning for 3.0.1 in terms of release dates and what to have in the release so we can get this out the door quickly? -Brett

Benjamin Peterson

8:07 p.m.

On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 1:56 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:

...

Great! Then should we start planning for 3.0.1 in terms of release dates and what to have in the release so we can get this out the door quickly?

I think considering there's only two release blockers we should plan for about a week or two from now. I'm not sure if we want to do a release candidate; we didn't for 2.6.1, but maybe it would be good to see if the community can find any other horrible problems. -- Regards, Benjamin

Brett Cannon

8:14 p.m.

On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 12:07, Benjamin Peterson wrote:

...

On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 1:56 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:

...
Great! Then should we start planning for 3.0.1 in terms of release dates and what to have in the release so we can get this out the door quickly?

I think considering there's only two release blockers we should plan for about a week or two from now.

I'm not sure if we want to do a release candidate; we didn't for 2.6.1, but maybe it would be good to see if the community can find any other horrible problems.

I say it's Barry's call. If he has the time and wants to, then great; they don't hurt. But I know I won't object if we don't have one. -Brett

Barry Warsaw

31 Jan 31 Jan

1:47 p.m.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Jan 30, 2009, at 3:07 PM, Benjamin Peterson wrote:

...

On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 1:56 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:

...
Great! Then should we start planning for 3.0.1 in terms of release dates and what to have in the release so we can get this out the door quickly?

I think considering there's only two release blockers we should plan for about a week or two from now.

I'm not sure if we want to do a release candidate; we didn't for 2.6.1, but maybe it would be good to see if the community can find any other horrible problems.

Let's JFDI. No release candidate. Barry -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin) iQCVAwUBSYRWa3EjvBPtnXfVAQIVpgQAo1tb/RJ81WFBJHH1GhdhtKagrB5p9MSl U+GfnLx9mEtqBqQ9rnXaQQaPpJjvNmXc10K+8oDdwCJHSX3k66JbK4U4BOBqWgc3 0PTrdIn5/4PqfexT3HWNmH/mZCZXb36HDcE6fxW5CWxuxHbNLypBY7P52XgVJIBW hqMBQVVNxgw= =Zq3w -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Barry Warsaw

1:46 p.m.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Jan 30, 2009, at 1:56 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:

...

On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 08:03, Barry Warsaw wrote:

...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1

On Jan 30, 2009, at 12:53 AM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:

...
...
1. Barry, who is the release manager for 3.0.1, does not like the idea of the cruft that is being proposed removed from 3.0.1.

I don't think he actually said that (in fact, I think he said the opposite). It would be good if he clarified, though.

To clarify: cruft that should have been removed 3.0 is fine to remove for 3.0.1, for some definition of "should have been".

Great! Then should we start planning for 3.0.1 in terms of release dates and what to have in the release so we can get this out the door quickly?

How about Friday February 13? If that works for everybody, I'll tag the release on my evening of the 12th so that Martin and other east-of- mes will be able to do their thing by my morning of the 13th. I've added this to the Python release calendar. Barry -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin) iQCVAwUBSYRWRXEjvBPtnXfVAQI/+wQAm95gTGojwZXSU8qfBtNXgD/lALMi1ncK ctEOhueAwnRBCnFg9UyqgX8dcmogWL7M+pikpOjVeH/TUiArXDIlcY+glkVzgMo4 7DizBu5b6SpJq8h1iTvniqsT7SDZeE1S1FhPBIi5cIja78fD2F5Ny5OGV2K377TP GhjZxX8gepw= =OPBI -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

"Martin v. Löwis"

7:43 p.m.

...

How about Friday February 13?

Fine with me (although next Friday (Feb 6) would work slightly better) Martin

Barry Warsaw

2 Feb 2 Feb

7:03 p.m.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Jan 31, 2009, at 2:43 PM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:

...

...
How about Friday February 13?

Fine with me (although next Friday (Feb 6) would work slightly better)

Feb 6 won't work for me. Would the 20th be better for you Martin? Barry -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin) iQCVAwUBSYdDbnEjvBPtnXfVAQKfGwQAjow7pXouQ+e+qAOzgvYm7x5atqMeLbUI iQJ2o83Gdci8jtJZQgd3jRccE2qqST9yJrOkYwA20M1KamktoqSQJJQ6fQcKMSSa nP1ZCrnNmKrt4NjeKUdB/g626mEpowmk6X5pgrITVUL1g35h+n+bqlgDrJ5HzaqQ rPiBtt2WCh4= =Svnl -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

"Martin v. Löwis"

9:48 p.m.

...

...
Fine with me (although next Friday (Feb 6) would work slightly better)

Feb 6 won't work for me. Would the 20th be better for you Martin?

No, they are both busy days - Feb 13 is then slightly better than Feb 20. I have about an hour in the morning (around 8:00 UTC), and then after 15:00 UTC - so I should be done in my evening, if that's good enough. Regards, Martin

Barry Warsaw

9:50 p.m.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Feb 2, 2009, at 4:48 PM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:

...

...
...
Fine with me (although next Friday (Feb 6) would work slightly better)

Feb 6 won't work for me. Would the 20th be better for you Martin?

No, they are both busy days - Feb 13 is then slightly better than Feb 20. I have about an hour in the morning (around 8:00 UTC), and then after 15:00 UTC - so I should be done in my evening, if that's good enough.

Yep, that will work. B -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin) iQCVAwUBSYdqo3EjvBPtnXfVAQLe9AQAh5e7P+7tO0Ibd8f/2Yvj7xfoYoQk0Z5n V/nMpN+UbSI55w5ZvPrjL1a0zFknTaqBxeSTbhdbIeNXVAUEc8oWauajMvJjCH/r WXZjAze9WW6BqW3UJCmMmmMtRc6biKyv++avhuu/ursiGdaV9JMYk/q0R970ny2V s+FF4gZKGpo= =+MjC -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Barry Warsaw

30 Jan 30 Jan

4:02 p.m.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Jan 29, 2009, at 10:59 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:

...

1. Barry, who is the release manager for 3.0.1, does not like the idea of the cruft that is being proposed removed from 3.0.1. Personally I say we continue to peer pressure him as I think a new major release is not like our typical minor release, but I am not about to force Barry to go against what he thinks is reasonable unless I am willing to step up as release manager (and I am not since I simply don't have the time to learn the process fast enough along with just a lack of time with other Python stuff).

I followed up in a different thread, but just FTR here. I'll continue to RM 3.0. I'll follow the community consensus on specific issues, but if there isn't a clear one and I have to decide, I'll likely take the more conservative path. Appealing to python-dev and Guido is (as always :) allowed. Barry -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin) iQCVAwUBSYMkjHEjvBPtnXfVAQK/fgP/T4uWwU41k1OEgS6ngXlZvUao3dVh0Hni f+iyeo+cyvWggp6ks1NLoJ+BOH/lpwIybwtuLqUI/FcajctdlOUaTyw2CE2jPjgD SMJID5oj1e/7vpB3Dk26RCIB+trZ6GTg1lC4OjRVn0vrKK/QVRg6dYD2YKcW0Seh fF++3EHxhW0= =TMO+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

5559

Age (days ago)

5562

Last active (days ago)

List overview

Download

15 comments

6 participants

participants (6)

"Martin v. Löwis"
Barry Warsaw
Benjamin Peterson
Brett Cannon
Mark Dickinson
Terry Reedy

3.0.1/3.1.0 summary

tags

participants (6)