[Python-Dev] Python 3.0.1
phil at riverbankcomputing.com
Fri Jan 30 13:21:39 CET 2009
On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 07:03:03 -0500, Steve Holden <steve at holdenweb.com>
> Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>> Raymond Hettinger <python <at> rcn.com> writes:
>>> * If you're thinking that shelves have very few users and that
>>> 3.0.0 has had few adopters, doesn't that mitigate the effects
>>> of making a better format available in 3.0.1? Wouldn't this
>>> be the time to do it?
>> There was already another proposal for an sqlite-based dbm module, you
>> want to synchronize with it:
>> As I see it, the problem with introducing it in 3.0.1 is that we would
>> rushing in a new piece of code without much review or polish.
>> Also, there are
>> only two release blockers left for 3.0.1, so we might just finish those
>> release, then concentrate on 3.1.
> Seems to me that every deviation from the policy introduced as a result
> for the True/False debacle leads to complications and problems. There's
> no point having a policy instigated for good reasons if we can ignore
> those reasons on a whim.
> So to my mind, ignoring the policy *is* effectively declaring 3.0 to be,
> well, if not a dead parrot then at least a rushed release.
> Most consistently missing from this picture has been effective
> communications (in both directions) with the user base. Consequently
> nobody knows whether specific features are in serious use, and nobody
> knows whether 3.0 is intended to be a stable base for production
> software or not. Ignoring users, and acting as though we know what they
> are doing and what they want, is not going to lead to better acceptance
> of future releases.
My 2 cents as a user...
I wouldn't consider v3.0.n (where n is small) for use in production. v3.1
however implies (to me at least) a level of quality where I would be
disappointed if it wasn't production ready.
Therefore I would suggest the main purpose of any v3.0.1 release is to make
sure that v3.1 is up to scratch.
More information about the Python-Dev