[Python-Dev] [Python-3000] Python 2.6 and 3.0

[Barry Warsaw]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Feb 22, 2008, at 6:54 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:

>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> I've volunteered to be the release manager for Python 2.6 and 3.0.
>> It's been several years since I've RM'd a Python release, and I'm
>> happy to do it again (he says while the medication is still
>> working :).
>
> Can the PSF buy you more of the meds? =)

Depends on the jurisdiction. :)

>> I would like to get the next alpha releases of both
>> versions out before Pycon, so I propose next Friday, February 29 for
>> both.
>>
>
> Since they are just alphas, sure. Not like I am going to make any
> earth-shattering changes that soon.

Cool.

>> Guido reminded me that we released Python 1.6 and 2.0 together and it
>> makes sense to both of us to do the same for Python 2.6 and 3.0.  I
>> don't think it will be that much more work (for me at least :) to
>> release them in lockstep, so I think we should try it.  I won't try  
>> to
>> sync their pre-release version numbers except at the milestones (e.g.
>> first beta, release candidates, final releases).
>>
>> I propose to change PEP 361 to outline the release schedule for both
>> Python 2.6 and 3.0.  I'm hoping we can work out a more definite
>> schedule at Pycon, but for now I want to at least describe the
>> lockstep release schedule and the Feb 29 date.
>>
>> I'd also like for us to consider doing regular monthly releases.
>> Several other FLOSS projects I'm involved with are doing this to very
>> good success.  The nice thing is that everyone knows well in advance
>> when the next release is going to happen, and so all developers and
>> users know what to expect and what is needed from them.
>>
>> I'd like to propose that we do a joint release the last Friday of
>> every month.  For the alphas, it's basically what's in svn.  This
>> gives us some time to experiment with the process out and see if we
>> like it enough to keep it going through the betas and final releases.
>>
>> Comments?
>
> If you want to do monthly alphas, go for it! But if you are going to
> do that frequently is a source release going to make more sense than
> doing binary builds?

It very well might.  See Christian Heimes's follow up re: Windows  
builds.  OTOH, I'm okay if at least for the alphas, the binary builds  
lag behind the source releases, though I'd like to get the process as  
streamlined as possible.

- -Barry

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin)

iQCVAwUBR8GunXEjvBPtnXfVAQIP0AQAo5F2tH1vXWbMAFGARZN576xopbQXSokX
uVNXbeg5yjopCx38sHb5OCbublyIDOO8/2ubuuQ6uvAOJc3Br4BuMGHoC5ymQGqf
6pZYZLf4YUGLqFlYOB/huXpJPfH98RJJnK99zA8IQh4B7pN4xg14MF22gGij3Ybt
z2hoy1EbYEk=
=hW7b
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----