Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?

Mark Lawrence breamoreboy at yahoo.co.uk
Mon Jul 20 02:27:55 CEST 2015


On 20/07/2015 00:23, Cecil Westerhof wrote:
> On Monday 20 Jul 2015 00:51 CEST, Mark Lawrence wrote:
>
>> On 19/07/2015 23:10, Cecil Westerhof wrote:
>>> On Sunday 19 Jul 2015 22:28 CEST, Mark Lawrence wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 19/07/2015 21:05, Cecil Westerhof wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday 19 Jul 2015 21:01 CEST, Ian Kelly wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 10:10 AM, Cecil Westerhof <Cecil at decebal.nl> 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?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Poor analogy. Babies need others to change their diapers for
>>>>>> them because they're not capable of doing it for themselves.
>>>>>
>>>>> That is why I think it is good analogy. I think that most of the
>>>>> users of 2.7 who would be delighted with fixes would have no idea
>>>>> how to get those fixes into 2.7.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> They could try reading the development guide to start with, or is
>>>> that also too much to ask?
>>>
>>> My impression is that you and some other people are in an ivory
>>> tower and find it very cosy.
>>>
>>> It reminds me about the man on dry land who responded to the person
>>> who fell in water and shouted
>>> “Help, I cannot swim!”
>>> with
>>> “Why are you screaming?
>>> I cannot swim also.
>>> Do you hear me yelling about it?"
>>>
>>
>> You are now suggesting that people shouldn't even bother reading the
>> develoment guide, just great. Do they have to do anything themselves
>> to get patches through? Presumably the core devs give up their paid
>> work, holidays, families, other hobbies and the like, just so some
>> bunch of lazy, bone idle gits can get what they want, for nothing,
>> when it suits them? It appears that babies aren't the only people
>> who need their nappies changing around here.
>
> No use replying anymore. You make a caricature of what I am saying and
> put words in my mouth I never said. Just stay in your cosy ivory
> tower. But please do not pretend that you are open for discussion,
> because you are not.
>

Thank goodness for that as you make no sense at all.

As for this ivory tower nonsense, you clearly haven't bothered reading 
anything I've said about the proposed improvements to the core workflow. 
  But then of course you wouldn't bother with that, you again expect 
somebody else to do all the work for you, for free, and probably still 
complain that the benefits that you're getting aren't enough.  Quite 
frankly your attitude throughout this thread makes me puke.

-- 
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