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

[phil hunt]

On 14 Apr 2002 06:26:16 GMT, James Logajan <JamesL at Lugoj.com> wrote:
>Tim Peters <tim.one at comcast.net> wrote:
>> 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.
>
>Not sure, but I think you are close to describing what has been called the 
>tragedy of the commons.
>
>Back when I was paid to do Python work, I contributed all of US$50 (I 
>think; maybe it was $20) to the PSA (I think it was called) and tried to 
>get the company I was consulting for to kick in a couple thousand (or a 
>couple hundred at least). They never got around to that, alas.
>
>Unfortunately I'm not sure what would be gained by contributions to a 
>strategy that I have specifically stated I don't agree with. Further, it is 
>unclear how I can "contribute" to the slower pacing of releases that I'd 
>like to see.

One way to do that would be to fork the program and have a new
version of Python in which it would be guaranteed that changes would
not stamp on existing projects. This "Stable Python" would of course
gradually become incompatible with the existing "Unstable Python",
leading to duplication of effort and overall confusion, which is why 
I hope it doesn't happen.

-- 
<"><"><"> Philip Hunt <philh at comuno.freeserve.co.uk> <"><"><">
"I would guess that he really believes whatever is politically 
advantageous for him to believe." 
                        -- Alison Brooks, referring to Michael
                              Portillo, on soc.history.what-if