Do you QA your Python? Was: 2.1 vs. 2.2

[Tim Peters]

[James Logajan]
> ...
> Another important criteria in commercial environments is what
> versions are supported commercially.  The "core competencies" of many
> businesses is in the specific applications they write, not compiler or
> interepter development.  And open source can't change that limitation.
> Business people believe in contractual obligations and monetary
> incentives as their insurance that support will be there when they
> need it.

Well, at least ActiveState will be happy to sell you all the Python support
you want, contracts and all.  I expect PythonLabs would too, if people were
willing to pay the full cost; as is, we can't even afford a single full-time
tester, or porter, or doc writer, or anything else (not even Guido is
full-time on Python).  Zope Corp's direct "monetary incentives" in
supporting part-time Python work are all in the red.

It's in the nature of open source development that volunteers scratch their
own itches, then share what they've done because it does them good too to
have their work widely adopted.  If you can ride that curve, you can get an
enormous amount of high-quality work for free.  If not, you'll have to pay
for it or go without.

A crushing amount of debate over "stability" has gone by on Python-Dev the
last week, and the one thing that strikes me over and over is that, with
just a few minor exceptions, nobody volunteers to *do* anything except tell
other people what to do.  What are you willing to do to make your desires a
reality?  If it doesn't involve contributing work, time or money, you just
want a free ride.  But nobody owes anyone a free ride, and open source can't
change that fact of life either.

open-source-helps-those-who-help-themselves-and-the-payback-is-
    phenomenal-for-those-playing-the-game-ly y'rs  - tim