Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?
tjreedy at udel.edu
Sun Jul 19 21:38:23 CEST 2015
On 7/18/2015 10:33 PM, Devin Jeanpierre wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 18, 2015 at 6:34 PM, Terry Reedy <tjreedy at udel.edu> wrote:
>> On 7/18/2015 8:27 PM, Mark Lawrence wrote:
>>> On 19/07/2015 00:36, Terry Reedy wrote:
>>> Programmers don't much like doing maintainance work when they're paid to
>>> do it, so why would they volunteer to do it?
>> Right. So I am asking: if a 3.x user volunteers a 3.x patch and a 3.x core
>> developer reviews and edits the patch until it is ready to commit, why
>> should either of them volunteer to do a 2.7 backport that they will not use?
> Because it helps even more people.
Writing another 3.x patch would also help other people and might be more
'fun'. That is the situation I am in with respect to Idle.
> It gets really boring submitting 2.7-specific patches, though, when
> they aren't accepted, and the committers have such a hostile attitude
> towards it. I was told by core devs that, instead of fixing bugs in
> Python 2, I should just rewrite my app in Python 3. It has even been
> implied that bugs in Python 2 are *good*, because that might help with
> Python 3 adoption.
Like Steven, I would be interested in specifics, though I do not
disbelieve you. I do not believe those two attitudes are exactly
official policy, and I may request more discussion of them on pydev.
>>> Then even if you do the
>>> work to fix *ANY* bug there is no guarantee that it gets committed.
>> I am discussing the situation where there *is* a near guarantee (if the
>> backport works and does not break anything and has not been so heavily
>> revised as to require a separate review).
> That is not how I have experienced contribution to CPython.
I know. Some core developers are trying to revamp the issue-patch
handling process to remove some of the busywork, use our time more
efficiency, and make it work more smoothly for everyone.
But let me try again. I am discussing a situation where a core
developer has either requested or already agreed to apply a 2.7
backport. I have seen such in the past, but maybe this is now rare.
I specifically would like to be able to request backports for Idle
patches and get responses. When requested, I really would apply
responses that worked. Really.
But I now realized that most people would rather write a patch, on their
own schedule, for an issue that bugs them, and perhaps use it locally,
even if rejected for the repository, than write a guaranteed patch
'right now for a issue of no interest to them (and which might require
python knowledge they do not have).
> If the issue was closed as fixed before I contributed the backported
> patch, does anyone even see it?
Yes. All changes on as issue, including uploads, are emailed to all on
the nosy list regardless of open/closed/... status. However, I would
inquire first. "If I backport the committed bugfix to 2.7, would you
Terry Jan Reedy
More information about the Python-list