[Python-Dev] Python 2.6 and 3.0

[Barry Warsaw]

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

On Feb 25, 2008, at 7:11 PM, Christian Heimes wrote:

> Barry Warsaw wrote:
>> From the follow ups, it sounds like others can pitch in here.  A
>> question though: is it reasonable to hold up the monthly release  
>> because
>> a binary build we're going to make available can't be done at the  
>> same
>> time?
>>
>> My preference (at least for the alphas) is "no".  If we can make a
>> source release, and if we can build a binary release from exactly the
>> same revision, then we should go ahead and release.  I'd rather get  
>> the
>> alpha out there and in people's hands.
>>
>> We'll almost certainly be stricter for the candidates, finals, and  
>> maybe
>> betas.
>
> I agree. It's not reasonable to hold of alphas because the Windows
> binaries may be released a few days later. Do we need official Windows
> binaries for alphas at all? Martin's buildbot creates nightly Windows
> builds. We could point users to the nightly builds and ask them to  
> test
> the version.

That would be find with me.  Where are those Windows binaries  
available for download from?

>> Dang.  I actually don't know how long it's going to take me to do the
>> source release, but I hope it's no more than 3 or 4 hours.
>
> I guess it's less than 2 hours. You can prepare most of the work like
> the announcements a couple of days earlier. I (perhaps naively) assume
> you have to smack the whip to get everything in place, do the svn cp  
> to
> tag, svn export, tar cz, tar xzf && ./configure && make && make test
> dance and upload the tar.gz. Am I missing something important? :]

Dunno yet!  It's been years since I did a release and I really want to  
check out Anthony's welease tool this time.  I may not have time  
before Friday to look at this though.

>> When's the PSF gonna start hiring? :)
>
> Dunno :) But I'm probably the last in a long line of Python core
> developers to get hired. Don't forget I'm still fresh and a junior  
> core
> developer. *jk*

:)

>> So, as I mentioned in my last reply, I'm planning to only allow  
>> critical
>> bugs (as described in roundup) hold up the release.  Right now  
>> there are
>> no critical bugs open.
>
> #1569 is critical but not important enough to stop an alpha. As I said
> in the other mail it should be fixed for the first beta and must be
> fixed for the first rc.

It's not marked critical in roundup, and that's the only thing I'm  
going by!  But it doesn't seem critical in the sense that it should  
hold up the alpha release, IMO.

Cheers,
- -Barry

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

iQCVAwUBR8QF5nEjvBPtnXfVAQJhrgP/Xz3IQrlCB9QPGsMGIL+xG3I5t+aThNg6
4n/bMjt4DRzTCRiNBjUllyCb5+VtPfTZu2wFVdi5I7NLMDG4WI4jfDGZlhvodbHW
TPG/7bN/ykx9yE1hUPI5X+Kqrg0lG7Tbp9Zev5eHJCMwParSVu+hfWqD48+1bQqw
JGfzz8AlqE0=
=PQgE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----