Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?
rustompmody at gmail.com
Sun Jul 19 06:04:06 CEST 2015
On Sunday, July 19, 2015 at 9:16:08 AM UTC+5:30, Paul Rubin wrote:
> Terry Reedy writes:
> > I am suggesting that if there are 10x as many 2.7only programmers as
> > 3.xonly programmers, and none of the 2.7 programmers is willing to do
> > the backport *of an already accepted patch*, then maybe it should not
> > be done at all.
> The patch acceptance/approval process is frankly daunting.
And it should be.
Ive used python for some 15 years now and more than any particular language
aspect or feature, the aspect that keeps it in my core tool box is its reliability:
Mostly it does what I expect, and allowing a teacher to open the interpreter in
a class and hack real-time on coding depends on a certain stability that I
personally find very valuable.
So I would like to make a distinction between *approvals* being daunting
and *discussions* (for patches) being tolerated though (mostly) not being accepted.
Of course I accept that this can be unrealistic: Having to email:
"Sorry -- Unacceptable" can itself get out of hand if/when the number of well-meaning ignoramus suggestions crosses a threshold
More information about the Python-list