[Python-Dev] Re: Stability and change
08 Apr 2002 12:53:03 +0100
I'm only scanning this huge thread, so I may be out of context/repetitive.
Tim Peters <email@example.com> writes:
> >> Perhaps you're saying that PLabs should take that over?
> > No, this is for all active developers.
> How does that differ from PLabs? There are only a few active developers
> outside of PLabs who aren't "one issue" developers, and I wouldn't consider
> even *asking* Martin or Michael to take on more than they already do.
Thank you :)
> If a new plan involves docs, it necessarily sucks Fred in; if a new
> plan involves the PLabs Windows installer, it necessarily sucks me
> in; and new plan or old, you're hopelessly sucked in <wink>. The
> sum of all active developers isn't enough to tackle anything truly
> >> I don't think anyone is going to buy that as "maintaining" the 2.1.x
> >> series; I sure don't.
> > Maybe we need to use a different word? Barry noted that 2.1.x is the
> > most popular "stable" release and will probably remain that. So maybe
> > we should say this is the "recommended" release. And then maybe we
> > need to revise the decision not to make a Windows installer. Or maybe
> > we *do* need to spend more effort backporting patches (not necessarily
> > PLabs, but *somebody*).
> Who? Anthony Baxter withdrew from the 2.1.x line after 2.1.2 -- he was
> tired of doing it.
I'm reasonbly likely to disappear for a bit after 2.2.1 is done.
Doing a maintence release is a lot of work, and it's dull, tedious
work (but not thankless!).
I think 2.2.1 will be a pretty good release, and if so this will be in
large part due to a surge of enthusiasm on my part in the days around
the 2.2.1c1 release. This isn't going to happen again for a while --
I want to do some fun hacking (eg. porting psyco to my new iBook), and
I'm reasonably willing to do 222 so long as it's not for a few months.
 It's also very noticable that I got *far* more feedback about
2.2.1c1 than about 2.2.1c2. Like ten times the amount.
> He popped up again for 2.1.3 under the assurance that it was going
> to be a trivial effort. I have a real problem when a group of
> people demands something but won't volunteer anything to make it
> happen except their complaints;
Indeed; they can fuck off, in my book.
> > Another way to keep adding value to older releases is by backporting
> > the build procedure enhancements.
> Isn't this dangerous? Build config seems very delicate to me.
Bloody hell yes.
> > Once we've figured out how to build Python 2.3 on, say, some ancient
> > version of AIX, maybe somebody should port that back to 2.2 and 2.1.
> If they can swear it's not going to break some other Unix mutant, maybe.
This is a real issue. There are build fixes for AIX 3 on sf for 221;
they're not going in because I'm scared that they'll break something
There's hope in the work Martin's doing with autoconf. I'd like to
see this stuff in 222, if it works out.
. <- the point your article -> .
|------------------------- a long way ------------------------|
-- Cristophe Rhodes, ucam.chat