[Python-Dev] "Unstable" is an ambiguous word...

Gustavo Niemeyer niemeyer@conectiva.com
Tue, 9 Apr 2002 11:38:32 -0300

Hi Jacob!

> I would also like to add that there is a benefit with the multiple
> numbering scheme.  The various distribution makers will most probably
> build packages for both the stable and the experimental versions,
> allowing people to easily maintain both versions on their machines.

We are already doing this here. We have 2.1 packaged as an alternative
package for 2.2, and they can be installed at the same time. OTOH, 2.2
is the main package, since it's passed the updates we've done in the
various systems without any problem. 2.1 is not being distributed right
now, because of that (even though we have the package, and use in some
clients with Zope and alike). I wouldn't like to be forced to package
2.1 as the main stream package, because 2.2 is tagged as "unstable" (or
"in-development", or whatever).

> With the current situation, most distribution builders will skip the
> alpha, beta and rc versions, thus decreasing the population that will
> actually test them.

The problem is not about the naming scheme ("alpha", "beta", etc), but
its stability. I'm not going to include Python in an alpha stage, no
matter how it's named. OTOH, I'd include an rc version as we know today,
if the deadline obligate me to.

Even with all these discussions, I don't have a favorable position to
the change yet. That's probably because I've always had a terrible
impression about the Linux release scheme. With API breaks at anytime
and releases that just don't compile, I'd say Linux has two branches,
UNSTABLE and VERY-UNSTABLE. At the same time, I've always had the
python release scheme as a well designed one. I don't think changing
it will help Python. Indeed, it may even help those missinformed heads
create more confusion, and consume the already rare time of core

Best regards!

Gustavo Niemeyer

[ 2AAC 7928 0FBF 0299 5EB5  60E2 2253 B29A 6664 3A0C ]