Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?
jeanpierreda at gmail.com
Mon Jul 20 05:41:45 CEST 2015
On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 8:05 PM, Steven D'Aprano <steve at pearwood.info> wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 11:20 am, Devin Jeanpierre wrote:
>> 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 meant search your #python-dev IRC logs, where this was discussed.
As far as whether people notice patches after an issue is closed,
Terry Reedy answered "yes" earlier in the thread. If the answer is
actually "no", then we should fix how bugs are handled post-closure,
in case e.g. someone posts a followup patch that fixes a remaining
case, and so on.
>> 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.
That isn't what I said at all.
> 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.
I do want to say that. It doesn't help that those same individuals are
the only core devs I have interacted with while trying to patch 2.7.
More information about the Python-list