[Python-Dev] python2.1.2 plans, plus the curse of PEP-006.

Aahz Maruch aahz@rahul.net
Wed, 5 Dec 2001 14:43:00 -0800 (PST)


Anthony Baxter wrote:
> 
> I'd say that something like the following would make life easier
> 
>   The branch for 2.N-maint should be maintained until 2.(N+1) gets 
>   a first patch release. That is, 2.1-maint gets bugfixes until 2.2.1
>   gets out the door. Alternately, waiting X months after 2.(N+1).0
>   would be another approach.

What does "should be maintained" mean?  With CVS, IIUC, there's no
reason not to keep branches around forever.  If instead what you're
talking about is policy for work to be assigned, I won't let that into
PEP6; the entire point of PEP6 is that it only prescribes procedure for
someone who is already working, it does not specify any work to be
accomplished in the abstract.  

The original form of PEP6 was looser in this respect (in terms of
specifying when patch releases would occur and so on), but I was
convinced by Guido et al to stick strictly to "how" and not "when" or
"what".  At the very least, I think we should stick with the current
base plan for one or two more release cycles before making any
structured attempts to integrate bugfixes into the standard Python
release cycle.

> In any case, marking bugfix candidates in CVS logs should be a standard
> thing to do. 

The problem lies in creating the social structure to make that happen.
People who monitor CVS need to get into the habit of reminding each
other to mark bugfix candidates.  But that's beyond the scope of PEP6.
-- 
                      --- Aahz (@pobox.com)

Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6       <*>       http://www.rahul.net/aahz/
Androgynous poly kinky vanilla queer het Pythonista

We must not let the evil of a few trample the freedoms of the many.