Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?

Rick Johnson rantingrickjohnson at gmail.com
Sun Jul 19 04:04:45 CEST 2015


On Saturday, July 18, 2015 at 6:37:41 PM UTC-5, Terry Reedy wrote:
> If the vast majority of Python programmers are focused on
> 2.7, why are volunteers to help fix 2.7 bugs so scarce?

Because newer code is always more buggy than older code
(when both get significant attention that is). There were
quite a few growing pains after Py3 was released. All of
this required massive attention. This explains the "hype" 
for Py3.

> Does they all consider it perfect (or sufficient) as is?

No, but it works, and it works without bug-fixing old repos.

> Should the core developers who do not personally use 2.7 stop 
> backporting, because no one cares if they do?

I think that would be an awful mistake. The last thing you
want is rumors spreading that Python is buggy. Even if only
Python2 becomes buggy, it's bugginess with affect Python3's
reputation.

  TEAMLEADER: Should we use Python for project X?
  
  MEMBER1: I don't know, i heard Python was buggy???
  
  MEMBER2: *AND* the community is fractured!
  
  Member3: Which begs the question: Which version is going
  be around in few years?
  
  MEMBER4: And what if his "holiness" decides to break
  compatibility again?
  
  MEMBER5: Perhaps this time he'll make print a method of some
  new stdout object!

  TEAMLEADER: Yup. Let's make this easy and go with Ruby.

A bad reputation can ruin a language. I would warn against
allowing any version of Python to become buggy. Security or 
otherwise. The future of Python is literally hanging by a 
thread.



More information about the Python-list mailing list