Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?

Cecil Westerhof Cecil at decebal.nl
Sun Jul 19 19:14:13 CEST 2015


On Sunday 19 Jul 2015 18:38 CEST, Mark Lawrence wrote:

> On 19/07/2015 17:10, Cecil Westerhof wrote:
>> On Sunday 19 Jul 2015 15:42 CEST, Mark Lawrence wrote:
>>
>>> On 19/07/2015 03:13, Terry Reedy wrote:
>>>> On 7/18/2015 7:50 PM, Devin Jeanpierre wrote:
>>>>> to 2.7, surely bug fixes are also allowed?
>>>>
>>>> Of course, allowed.  But should they be made, and if so, by who?
>>>
>>> The people who want the fixes.
>>
>> Babies want clean diapers. So babies have to change diapers
>> themselves?
>>
>
> That has to be the worst analogy I've ever read.  We are discussing
> backporting working patches, *NOT* having to go through the whole
> shooting match from scratch.

You think so? I think that a lot of people who are using 2.7 would
like to have the fixes. They know how to use Python, but they would
not now how to implement a patch. That is why I made this comment.

Comments are (almost) always an exaggeration. When someone tells me:
“I have been 1.000 times to the store to get my money back”, most of
the time I would not take this literally, but understand it means very
often.

-- 
Cecil Westerhof
Senior Software Engineer
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/cecilwesterhof


More information about the Python-list mailing list