[Python-Dev] Re: Stability and change

Alex Martelli aleax@aleax.it
Mon, 8 Apr 2002 15:53:00 +0200

On Monday 08 April 2002 03:44 pm, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> >     GvR> Or maybe 2.3 should become 2.2.3.  <0.5 wink>
> >
> >     BAW> I think the new bool type has already prevented that.
> >
> >     SM> Why?  If you postulate that 2.even.x become the experimental
> >     SM> release branches, then 2.2.3 with a bool type makes perfect
> >     SM> sense.
> BAW> Given that interpretation, I'd agree.
> *If* we're going for an even/odd scheme, I wouldn't want to swap the
> Linux convention, so 2.2 would have to be stable, and 2.3
> experimental.  Given Alex's comments on 2.2, I don't think it's too
> far of a stretch to label 2.2 stable after the fact.  It could make it
> easier to start experimenting with stuff in 2.3.

Personally, I'd just _love_ this arrangement.  2.2.* stable, 2.3.*
experimental -- and once you have a 2.3.x, for some value of x,
that you judge IS worth becoming the next Stable branch, you
can make it 2.4.0, or 2.4, or 3.0 -- whatever fits best.

> I also like the idea of doing away with alpha/beta releases and use
> micro releases instead.  

Yay for the Experimental branch -- not sure about the Stable branch,
but we can think about at at the time 2.4 or whatever is ready; part
of the arrangement should IMHO be to change the current commitment
to twice-yearly-minor-releases into a "release early, release often" idea
for Experimental, "release when needed to get important bug-fixes or
backported stuff" for 2.Stable.microrelease -- but 2.(NextStable).0 should
be solid when it happens (break compatibility with 2.PreviousStable.*
only in specified ways, for example).  Maybe that comes for free from
2.4.0 being == 2.3.something -- that depends on how popular the 2.3.*
branch becomes, I guess.  Hard to predict (offhand, it would seem to me
that 2.3.* will be very popular, but I wouldn't be astonished if that proved
to not be the case).

> I guess we'd have to issue a press release
> (we may already be doing one for 2.2.1, we may have to add some words
> to it).

Seems an opportunity (to send a nice-sounding message to a certain
segment of the development community).

> Maybe I should PEP it first? :-)

Why not -- if you don't announce the PEP on c.l.p there shouldn't be too
much troublesome bickering about it anyway:-).