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

Nick Coghlan ncoghlan at gmail.com
Sat May 30 13:20:56 CEST 2015

On 30 May 2015 at 20:58, Antoine Pitrou <solipsis at pitrou.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 30 May 2015 18:55:20 +1000
> Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 30 May 2015 10:46, "Alexander Walters" <tritium-list at sdamon.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > Python is a giant cache-miss generator.  A little performance boost on the opt-code dispatch isn't going to change that much.  If we really do care about improving python to do less environmental damage, then that is a discussion we should be having on it's own merits.  It was really out of place, even in this tangenty thread.
>> I think the way core development gets funded is entirely on topic for
>> the main core development mailing list, we just historically haven't
>> discussed it openly, even though some of us have been advocating for
>> various improvements to arrangements behind the scenes. I personally
>> consider becoming more transparent about how we go about that process
>> to be a good thing.
> The way this so-called discussion is taking place feels much less like
> an actual discussion than an aggressive push for a change in maintenance
> policy. Guido has already taunted Ian Cordasco out of contributing.

Ian was unfortunately responding from incomplete information. While
"we're all volunteers here" was true for a very long time, with Guido
being the main exception since the PythonLabs days, a number of folks
(both existing core contributors and members of other organisations)
have been working hard to change that, since it's an unsustainable
state of affairs given the criticality of CPython as a piece of
Internet infrastructure.

Given the extensive complaints about the lack of corporate
contribution to upstream CPython maintenance, the hostile reaction to
a concrete proposal for such ongoing contributions has been both
incredibly surprising *and* disappointing, especially when it was
deliberately aimed at tasks that most volunteers find to be a
unrewarding chore rather than an entertaining use of their free time.

The offer came with one string attached: that the Python 2.7 branch be
opened up for performance improvements in addition to bug fixes. Since
maintainability was the main concern with not backporting performance
improvements in the first place, this seemed like a straight up win to
me (and presumably to other folks aware of the offer), so it never
even occurred to us that folks might not accept "because this proposal
is backed by a credible offer of ongoing contributions to CPython
maintenance and support" as a complete answer to the question of "Why
accept this proposal to backport performance enhancements, and not
previous proposals?".


Nick Coghlan   |   ncoghlan at gmail.com   |   Brisbane, Australia

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list