Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?

Steven D'Aprano steve at pearwood.info
Mon Jul 20 05:05:21 CEST 2015


On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 11:20 am, Devin Jeanpierre wrote:

> On Sat, Jul 18, 2015 at 9:45 PM, Steven D'Aprano <steve at pearwood.info>
> wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> Really? Can you point us to this discussion?
> 
> Yes, really. It was on #python-dev IRC.

Ah, pity, because I really would have liked to have seen the context. (I
assume there are no archives of #python and #python-dev. At least, I've
never found them.)


>> If you are right, and that was an official pronouncement, then it seems
>> that non-security bug fixes to 2.7 are forbidden.
> 
> I never said it was a pronouncement, or official. It wasn't. I have no
> idea where you got that idea from, given that I specifically have said
> that I think non-security bug fixes are allowed.

You said that core devs told you not to fix bugs in Python 2. Do you really
think it's a big stretch to go from "core devs said don't fix Python 2
bugs" to "it's core dev policy to not fix Python 2 bugs"?


> Search your logs for https://bugs.python.org/issue17094 and
> http://bugs.python.org/issue5315
> 
> I was most frustrated by the first case -- the patch was (informally)
> rejected in favor of the "right" fix, and the "right" fix was
> (informally) rejected because it changed behavior, leaving me only
> with the option of absurd workarounds of a bug in Python, or moving to
> python 3.

In the first case, 17094, your comments weren't added until TWO YEARS after
the issue was closed. It's quite possible that nobody has even noticed
them. In the second case, the issue is still open. So I don't understand
your description above: there's no sign that the patch in 17094 was
rejected, the patch had bugs and it was fixed and applied to 3.4. It wasn't
applied to 2.7 for the reasons explained in the tracker: it could break
code that is currently working.

For the second issue, it has neither been applied nor rejected.


> I don't like how this is being redirected to "surely you
> misunderstood" or "I don't believe you". The fact that some core devs
> are hostile to 2.x development is really bleedingly obvious, 

Not to me it isn't. At worst, I would say that some of them are indifferent
to 2.7.


> you 
> shouldn't need quotes or context thrown at you. The rhetoric almost
> always shies _just_ short of ceasing bugfixes (until 2020, when that
> abruptly becomes a cracking good idea). e.g. in "2.7 is here until
> 2020, please don't call it a waste".

Right. So you take an extended ten year maintenance period for Python 2.7 as
evidence that the core devs are *hostile* to maintaining 2.7? That makes no
sense to me.

If you want to say that *some individuals* who happen to have commit rights
are hostile to Python 2.7, I can't really argue with that. Individuals can
have all sorts of ideas and opinions. But the core devs as a group are very
supportive of Python 2.7, even going to the effort of back-porting
performance improvements.



-- 
Steven



More information about the Python-list mailing list