[Python-Dev] 2.7 is here until 2020, please don't call it a waste.

[Ian Cordasco]

On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 6:04 PM, Guido van Rossum <guido at python.org> wrote:
> On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 2:52 PM, Ian Cordasco <graffatcolmingov at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 4:14 PM, Gregory P. Smith <greg at krypto.org> wrote:
>> >
>> > On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 12:24 AM Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan at gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On 29 May 2015 11:01 am, "Victor Stinner" <victor.stinner at gmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > Why not continue to enhance Python 3 instead of wasting our time with
>> >> > Python 2? We have limited resources in term of developers to maintain
>> >> > Python.
>> >> >
>> >> > (I'm not talking about fixing *bugs* in Python 2 which is fine with
>> >> > me.)
>> >>
>> >> I'm actually OK with volunteers deciding that even fixing bugs in 2.7
>> >> isn't inherently rewarding enough for them to be willing to do it for
>> >> free
>> >> on their own time.
>> >
>> >
>> > That is 100% okay.
>> >
>> > What is not okay is for python-dev representatives to respond to users
>> > (in
>> > any list/forum/channel) reporting bugs in 2.7 or asking if a fix in 3
>> > can be
>> > backported to 2.7 with things akin to "just use Python 3" or "sorry, 2.7
>> > is
>> > critical fixes only. move to python 3 already." This is actively driving
>> > our
>> > largest users away.  I bring this up because a user was bemoaning how
>> > useless they feel python core devs are because of this attitude
>> > recently.
>> > Leading to feelings of wishing to just abandon CPython if not Python all
>> > together.
>> >
>> > I'm sure I have even made some of those responses myself (sorry!). My
>> > point
>> > here is: know it. recognize it. don't do it anymore. It harms the
>> > community.
>> >
>> > A correct and accurate response to desires to make non-api-breaking
>> > changes
>> > in 2.7 is "Patches that do not change any APIs for 2.7 are welcome in
>> > the
>> > issue tracker." possibly including "I don't have the bandwidth to review
>> > 2.7
>> > changes, find someone on python-dev to review and champion this for you
>> > if
>> > you need it."  Finding someone may not always be easy. But at least is
>> > still
>> > the "patches welcome" attitude and suggests that the work can be done if
>> > someone is willing to do it. Lets make a concerted effort to not be
>> > hostile
>> > and against it by default.
>> >
>> > Ex: Is someone with a python application that is a million of lines
>> > supposed
>> > to have everyone involved in that drop the productive work they are
>> > doing
>> > and spend that porting their existing application to python 3 because we
>> > have so far failed to provide the tools to make that migration easy?
>> > No.
>> > Empathize with our community.  Feel their pain.  (and everyone who is
>> > working on tools to aid the transition: keep doing that! Our users are
>> > gonna
>> > need it unless we don't want them as users anymore.)
>> >
>> > We committed to supporting 2.7 until 2020 in 2014 per
>> > https://hg.python.org/peps/rev/76d43e52d978.  That means backports of
>> > important bug or performance fixes should at least be allowed on the
>> > table,
>> > even if hairy, even if you won't work on them yourselves on a volunteer
>> > basis. This is the first long term support release of Python ever. This
>> > is
>> > what LTS means.  LTS could also stand for Learn To Support...
>>
>> At the same time, they can ask for it, but if people aren't motivated
>> to do the work for it, it won't happen. We should be encouraging (and
>> maybe even mentoring) these people who are desperately in need of the
>> fixes to be backported, to backport the patches themselves. With that
>> done, it can go through review and we can maybe get those fixes in
>> faster if we can also get a larger group of reviews.
>>
>> The problem consists of a few parts:
>>
>> - We're all volunteers
>
>
> Speak for yourself. There are a fair number of people on this thread whose
> employer pays them to work on Python. And this thread originated when a
> patch was being contributed by people who were also paid by their employer
> to do all the dirty work (including benchmarks). And yet they were
> (initially) given the cold shoulder by some "high and mighty" Python 3
> zealots. This attitude need to change.
>
>>
>> - Volunteers are going to work on what interests them
>> - Python 2.7 maintenance doesn't seem to interest many of our
>> volunteers currently
>>
>> Perhaps we should explain this to each of the people requesting
>> backports to (ideally) encourage them.
>
>
> Please let someone else do the explaining. I don't want to have to do the
> damage control after you "explain" something.

Good to know. I'll stop trying to make spare time to review patches then.