Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?

Mark Lawrence breamoreboy at yahoo.co.uk
Sun Jul 19 19:54:28 CEST 2015


On 19/07/2015 18:14, Cecil Westerhof wrote:
> 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.
>

I don't think so, I know.  If they want the patches that badly and can't 
do it themselves they'll have to grin and bear it, or do a bit of 
begging, or pay somebody to do it for them.  Unless the PSF or another 
body does the paying, something which I vaguely recall hearing about.

-- 
My fellow Pythonistas, ask not what our language can do for you, ask
what you can do for our language.

Mark Lawrence



More information about the Python-list mailing list