[Python-Dev] Simple IDLE issues to commit before Python 2.7.4 release in two weeks on 4/6/2013

[Todd Rovito]

On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 5:31 PM, Ned Deily <nad at acm.org> wrote:
> Todd,
>
> Thanks for your suggestions and work to improve IDLE and Python, in
> general.  There has been a lot of discussions recently, including your
> PEP proposal.  I have not commented on the discussions yet, though I
> plan to in the next few days.
No problem I enjoy working on Python!!!!  I look forward to reading
your comments.

> Unfortunately, it comes at one of the
> busiest times for those of us working on releases.  Not only is the
> 2.7.4 release in preparation but 3.2.4rc1 and 3.3.0.rc1 are about to be
> announced, all on similar schedules.  So just a few comments from my
> release team perspective.  No doubt, others may have other opinions.
>
> Bugfix releases, like these three, follow an abbreviated version of the
> full feature release process, outlined in the developer's guide:
>
>    http://docs.python.org/devguide/devcycle.html#stages
Thanks for the reference I will read it again this time more
carefully.  Before I sent the email I should have reviewed it so
perhaps I jumped the gun a little.

> For bugfix releases, we typically skip alphas and betas and go right to
> the release candidate stage, under the assumption that the criteria used
> for commits added to bugfix releases are designed to avoid incompatible
> changes and new features, unless explicitly approved for good reasons.
> That means that a release candidate is meant to be just that: the final
> set of bits that will be released.   All of us involved in software
> development have our own war stories of how some little last-minute
> change caused some unexpected breakage.  So the normal expectation is
> that, if any change is accepted and cherry-picked  after a release
> candidate has been published, a new RC cycle will need to happen unless
> the release manager decides the change is trivial enough that the risk
> is truly minimal, e.g. something like an obvious typo or a doc change.
> Certainly the changes proposed here would not normally fit those
> criteria.
Thanks for taking the time to explain that to me....for sure I don't
mean to rush the process.  I do know that the Python team releases a
high quality product and why change a good thing.

> Also, before the changes could be considered to be cherry-picked for a
> release, they need to be applied to the branches first and given some
> amount of testing, preferably on all of the major platforms where we
> support IDLE: X11, Windows, OS X.  So that's what needs to happen next.
I agree 100% so we just need to get these simple issues committed and
done.  It seems like now is a bad time so I can wait patiently, I
don't want to be a pest but it drives me nuts that some of these
issues have been fixed and they go uncommitted.  More than anything I
want the Python Core Developers to know that work has happened on IDLE
and many times the patches simply don't get committed.  I admit there
are various reasons some of these IDLE issues don't get resolved but
these first four are a slam dunk.  Please Python Core Developers don't
take offense I know everybody is busy moving the language forward
which is super important, I want to gently tickle your belly buttons
as a reminder only.

> There are various developers who have been applying IDLE fixes and now
> Roger is able to do so as well (yay!).  Once they are in, then the
> question of release becomes relevant.
Giving Roger commit rights will speed things up no doubt about that
but he is learning the ropes and I was hoping to get these four simple
issues committed and done with before 2.7.4 comes out.  Knowing now
that we have 6 months (instead of two weeks) relaxes me a little.

> There are a couple of possible
> scenarios I can see.   1. It's possible that problems will show up in
> one or more of the current RCs, necessitating another RC cycle, at which
> time the release manager(s) *might* be amenable to cherrypicking one or
> more fixes from the current branches.  2.  It's also possible (probable,
> I hope) that 2.7.5 and/or 3.3.2 will follow relatively quickly after
> 2.7.4 and 3.3.1.  (3.2.4 is expected to be the final 3.2.x bugfix
> release before it enters security-only fix mode.)  The period since the
> last maint releases for 2.7.x and 3.2.x was unusually long, for various
> good reasons, so there are about a year's worth of fixes going out for
> them this time, thereby raising the likelihood that new problems will be
> found requiring a fix in a new bugfix release.  Plus there are some
> security issues that need a final resolution in a release.  So, I'm
> hopeful that we won't have to wait nearly as long to see 2.7.5 after
> 2.7.4.  There's not as long a gap since 3.3.0 but still somewhat long
> for a first bugfix release.
All this is good information and makes me feel even better about
waiting a few months to get these four issues and possibly more IDLE
issues fixed before the next release.


> BTW, there is a fair amount of activity that goes on somewhat behind the
> scenes with getting releases out-the-door.  There a number of release
> artifacts that need to be produced and tested, webpages that need to be
> updated, announcements sent, etc.  For example, for OS X, we normally
> release two variants of installers for each beta, rc, and final release.
> Between the two variants, we support 13 different
> architecture/os-release combinations (only 11 for 3.3.x).  That means,
> at the moment, we have 37 different combinations we could test
> (including those for 2.7.4rc1, 3.2.4rc1, and 3.3.1rc1).  I don't
> personally test every one of them but I do run the Python tests on a
> representative sample (various OS levels vs. ppc/Intel-32/Intel-64) of
> configurations, including at least very minimal manual tests of IDLE to
> cover things like different versions of Tcl/Tk we support on OS X and
> current fixes like the recent infamous preferences panel crash.  Then
> there's the time required to investigate and writeup test failures, and
> decide on a fix strategy (e.g. is it a release blocker?).  Similar
> things happen for the WIndows installers and for the main source
> packages.  All of these things are part of what goes in to having a good
> batteries-included experience for our users, including IDLE users.  We
> all work on Python releases because we want to do it and we like to do
> it.  That doesn't mean the process is cast-in-concrete or can't be
> improved.  But there is a cost involved in producing releases that isn't
> always readily apparent.
Again I really appreciate the information now I have a much better
idea what goes into a release.

> Specially for IDLE, I think there are a number of things we can do to
> improve and speed its development process.  As noted, I'll have some
> concrete suggestions soon but, right now, I should get back to the
> release candidates at hand.  In the meantime, let's see what we can do
> to get those patches checked in, documented, and tested.
It would be great to hear those ideas when you get time.

Several people and I have been saying IDLE development is not dead
these four patches represent some fairly trivial yet important fixes.
I am willing to do almost anything to improve the state of IDLE
(bribery is not out of the question).  Just know that I am more
persistent than most people and I will not go away or give up, if the
issues I outlined have problems please indicate that with the issue
and we will get them fixed.  As people have stated on this list over
the last few days far better than I, Python users do care about IDLE.
 It would be great if we could all work together and make sure these
issues listed are all committed way before the next major release
cycle.  Thanks for your time and effort!