Re: [Python-Dev] Python 2.7 -- bugfix or security before EOL?
it still is in the time period before EOL that other recent versions have gone to security only.
Again, not relevant. You might want to read http://python3statement.org/.<http://python3statement.org/> I’m guessing my first message was unclear or able to be misunderstood in some part — I’m one of the frequent contributors to python3statement.org<http://python3statement.org> and have moved my own Python projects to Py3 only (the main one, music21, gets its 3.4+-only release this Saturday). I have NO desire to prolong the 2.7 pain. What I am referring to is the number of “needs backport to 2.7” tags for non-security-related bug-fixes in the issue tracker. (https://github.com/python/cpython/pulls?q=is%3Apr+is%3Aopen+label%3A%22needs+backport+to+2.7%22<https://github.com/python/cpython/pulls?q=is:pr+is:open+label:"needs+backport+to+2.7">) My question was between now and 1 Jan 2020 should we still be fixing things in 2.7 that we’re not fixing in 3.5, or leave 2.7 in a security-only mode for the next 21 months? Looking at what has been closed recently, without getting a bpo for actually backporting, it appears that we’re sort of doing this in practice anyhow. Thanks! and even if my message was read differently than I intended, glad that it had a good effect. Michael Cuthbert (https://music21-mit.blogspot.com)
Speaking from the sidelines, I'd say that any further backporting of non-security fixes would appear to be throwing good development effort away, This software is less than two years from the extremely well-heralded end of its life and people are expecting enhancements? It's a cold, ungrateful world we live in! It might be useful to retain the issues for the benefit of those who way wish to maintain the release after EOL, or at least get a list of them before the tags are wiped. regards Steve Steve Holden On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 1:16 PM, Michael Scott Cuthbert <cuthbert@mit.edu> wrote: > >* it still is in the time period before > *>* EOL that other recent versions have gone to security only. > * > Again, not relevant. > > You might want to read http://python3statement.org/. <http://python3statement.org/> > > I’m guessing my first message was unclear or able to be misunderstood in > some part — I’m one of the frequent contributors to python3statement.org > and have moved my own Python projects to Py3 only (the main one, music21, > gets its 3.4+-only release this Saturday). I have NO desire to prolong the > 2.7 pain. > > What I am referring to is the number of “needs backport to 2.7” tags for > non-security-related bug-fixes in the issue tracker. ( > https://github.com/python/cpython/pulls?q=is%3Apr+is% > 3Aopen+label%3A%22needs+backport+to+2.7%22 > <https://github.com/python/cpython/pulls?q=is:pr+is:open+label:%22needs+backport+to+2.7%22>) > My question was between now and 1 Jan 2020 should we still be fixing things > in 2.7 that we’re not fixing in 3.5, or leave 2.7 in a security-only mode > for the next 21 months? Looking at what has been closed recently, without > getting a bpo for actually backporting, it appears that we’re sort of doing > this in practice anyhow. > > Thanks! and even if my message was read differently than I intended, glad > that it had a good effect. > > Michael Cuthbert (https://music21-mit.blogspot.com) > > _______________________________________________ > Python-Dev mailing list > Python-Dev@python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev > Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/ > steve%40holdenweb.com > >
On 3/14/2018 9:16 AM, Michael Scott Cuthbert wrote:
I’m guessing my first message was unclear or able to be misunderstood in some part — I’m one of the frequent contributors to python3statement.org <http://python3statement.org> and have moved my own Python projects to Py3 only (the main one, music21, gets its 3.4+-only release this Saturday). I have NO desire to prolong the 2.7 pain.
Yes, sorry I mis-read you -- though like you I am happy about the resulting decision/clarification.
What I am referring to is the number of “needs backport to 2.7” tags for non-security-related bug-fixes in the issue tracker. (https://github.com/python/cpython/pulls?q=is%3Apr+is%3Aopen+label%3A%22needs... <https://github.com/python/cpython/pulls?q=is:pr+is:open+label:"needs+backport+to+2.7">)
14 is a small fraction of open fixes, which is perhaps your point.
My question was between now and 1 Jan 2020 should we still be fixing things in 2.7 that we’re not fixing in 3.5, or leave 2.7 in a security-only mode for the next 21 months? Looking at what has been closed recently, without getting a bpo for actually backporting, it appears that we’re sort of doing this in practice anyhow.
The only people who can do substantive backports are those currently familiar with 2.7 and the old code and some of the subtle semantic differences. It seems that a decreasing fraction of those still want to backport fixes.
Thanks! and even if my message was read differently than I intended, glad that it had a good effect.
-- Terry Jan Reedy
Oh, that makes your original email make much more sense (at least to me). I also interpreted it to mean you were interested in extending the EOL date out further, rather than pointing out that it should probably already have been switched from “bugfix” to “security” status. —Chris On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 8:46 AM Michael Scott Cuthbert <cuthbert@mit.edu> wrote: > >* it still is in the time period before > *>* EOL that other recent versions have gone to security only. > * > Again, not relevant. > > You might want to read http://python3statement.org/. <http://python3statement.org/> > > I’m guessing my first message was unclear or able to be misunderstood in > some part — I’m one of the frequent contributors to python3statement.org > and have moved my own Python projects to Py3 only (the main one, music21, > gets its 3.4+-only release this Saturday). I have NO desire to prolong the > 2.7 pain. > > What I am referring to is the number of “needs backport to 2.7” tags for > non-security-related bug-fixes in the issue tracker. ( > https://github.com/python/cpython/pulls?q=is%3Apr+is%3Aopen+label%3A%22needs+backport+to+2.7%22 > <https://github.com/python/cpython/pulls?q=is:pr+is:open+label:%22needs+backport+to+2.7%22>) > My question was between now and 1 Jan 2020 should we still be fixing things > in 2.7 that we’re not fixing in 3.5, or leave 2.7 in a security-only mode > for the next 21 months? Looking at what has been closed recently, without > getting a bpo for actually backporting, it appears that we’re sort of doing > this in practice anyhow. > > Thanks! and even if my message was read differently than I intended, glad > that it had a good effect. > > Michael Cuthbert (https://music21-mit.blogspot.com) > _______________________________________________ > Python-Dev mailing list > Python-Dev@python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev > Unsubscribe: > https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/chris.jerdonek%40gmail.com >
participants (4)
-
Chris Jerdonek -
Michael Scott Cuthbert -
Steve Holden -
Terry Reedy