[Oops, I posted a partial edit of this message by mistake before.]

I remember earlier discussion on the Python 2.1 release schedule, and never managed to comment on those.

I believe that Python contributors and maintainers did an enourmous job in releasing Python 2, which took quite some time from everybody's life. I think it is unrealistic to expect the same amount of commitment for the next release, especially if that release appears just a few months after the previous release (that is, one month from now).

So I'd like to ask the release manager to take that into account. I'm not quite sure what kind of action I expect; possible alternatives are: - declare 2.1 a pure bug fix release only; with a minimal set of new features. In particular, don't push for completion of PEPs; everybody should then accept that most features that are currently discussed will appear in Python 2.2.

- move the schedule for Python 2.1 back (or is it forward?) by, say, a few month. This will people give some time to do the things that did not get the right amount of attention during 2.0 release, and will still allow to work on new and interesting features.

Just my 0.02EUR,

You're right -- 2.0 (including 1.6) was a monumental effort, and I'm grateful to all who contributed. I don't expect that 2.1 will be anywhere near the same amount of work! Let's look at what's on the table. These are listed as Active PEPs -- under serious consideration for Python 2.1:

0042 Small Feature Requests Hylton

We can do some of these or leave them.

0205 Weak References Drake

This one's open.

0207 Rich Comparisons Lemburg, van Rossum

This is really not that much work -- I would've done it already if I weren't distracted by the next one.

0208 Reworking the Coercion Model Schemenauer

Neil has most of this under control. I don't doubt for a second that it will be finished.

0217 Display Hook for Interactive Use Zadka

Probably a 20-line fix.

0222 Web Library Enhancements Kuchling

Up to Andrew. If he doesn't get to it, no big deal.

0226 Python 2.1 Release Schedule Hylton

I still think this is realistic -- a release before the conference seems doable!

0227 Statically Nested Scopes Hylton

This one's got a 50% chance at least. Jeremy seems motivated to do it.

0230 Warning Framework van Rossum

Done except for documentation.

0232 Function Attributes Warsaw

We need to discuss this more, but it's not much work to implement.

0233 Python Online Help Prescod

If Paul can control his urge to want to solve everything at once, I see no reason whi this one couldn't find its way into 2.1. Now, officially the PEP deadline is closed today: the schedule says "16-Dec-2000: 2.1 PEPs ready for review". That means that no new PEPs will be considered for inclusion in 2.1, and PEPs not in the active list won't be considered either. But the PEPs in the list above are all ready for review, even if we don't agree with all of them. I'm actually more worried about the ever-growing number of bug reports and submitted patches. But that's for another time. --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)

[Oops, I posted a partial edit of this message by mistake before.]

I remember earlier discussion on the Python 2.1 release schedule, and never managed to comment on those.

I believe that Python contributors and maintainers did an enourmous job in releasing Python 2, which took quite some time from everybody's life. I think it is unrealistic to expect the same amount of commitment for the next release, especially if that release appears just a few months after the previous release (that is, one month from now).

So I'd like to ask the release manager to take that into account. I'm not quite sure what kind of action I expect; possible alternatives are: - declare 2.1 a pure bug fix release only; with a minimal set of new features. In particular, don't push for completion of PEPs; everybody should then accept that most features that are currently discussed will appear in Python 2.2.

- move the schedule for Python 2.1 back (or is it forward?) by, say, a few month. This will people give some time to do the things that did not get the right amount of attention during 2.0 release, and will still allow to work on new and interesting features.

Just my 0.02EUR,

You're right -- 2.0 (including 1.6) was a monumental effort, and I'm grateful to all who contributed. I don't expect that 2.1 will be anywhere near the same amount of work! Let's look at what's on the table. These are listed as Active PEPs -- under serious consideration for Python 2.1:

0042 Small Feature Requests Hylton

We can do some of these or leave them.

0205 Weak References Drake

This one's open.

0207 Rich Comparisons Lemburg, van Rossum

This is really not that much work -- I would've done it already if I weren't distracted by the next one.

0208 Reworking the Coercion Model Schemenauer

Neil has most of this under control. I don't doubt for a second that it will be finished.

0217 Display Hook for Interactive Use Zadka

Probably a 20-line fix.

0222 Web Library Enhancements Kuchling

Up to Andrew. If he doesn't get to it, no big deal.

0226 Python 2.1 Release Schedule Hylton

I still think this is realistic -- a release before the conference seems doable!

0227 Statically Nested Scopes Hylton

This one's got a 50% chance at least. Jeremy seems motivated to do it.

0230 Warning Framework van Rossum

Done except for documentation.

0232 Function Attributes Warsaw

We need to discuss this more, but it's not much work to implement.

0233 Python Online Help Prescod

If Paul can control his urge to want to solve everything at once, I see no reason whi this one couldn't find its way into 2.1. Now, officially the PEP deadline is closed today: the schedule says "16-Dec-2000: 2.1 PEPs ready for review". That means that no new PEPs will be considered for inclusion in 2.1, and PEPs not in the active list won't be considered either. But the PEPs in the list above are all ready for review, even if we don't agree with all of them. I'm actually more worried about the ever-growing number of bug reports and submitted patches. But that's for another time. --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)