Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?

Michael Torrie torriem at
Mon Jul 20 07:33:28 CEST 2015

On 07/19/2015 06:27 PM, Mark Lawrence wrote:
> On 20/07/2015 00:23, Cecil Westerhof wrote:
>> 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.

You'll have to explain yourself a bit, attacking Cecil like this.  I've
been following this thread and I don't see anything in Cecil's attitude
that is sickening.  You both have good points, and it's unfortunate
you're talking past one another, though it appears more like you are
talking past Cecil more than he is talking past you.  For the most part,
it's been good to hear from Cecil (there have been a few snarky posts)
as he has learned python and really run with it.  I don't understand
where your apparent frustration with Cecil is coming from.  Seems like
this last post of yours had more than a little attitude of the very type
you're decrying.

>From what I can tell, Cecil is simply challenging the conventional
notion that many have that all software developers using Python are able
and willing to participate in backporting and bug fixes to both CPython
and the Python 2.7 standard library.  You replied that the process for
contributing to Python is going to be streamlined, which is good.
However, like Cecil, I agree that many devs are still not going to be
able to contribute for many reasons, be they time, skills, economics, or
something else.  That doesn't make them lazy, entitled folk.  Certainly
if potential contributors jumped on this list and viewed this thread, I
think they might be discouraged by your post attacking Cecil.

Given the lack of economic incentive, I'm sure most devs understand that
Python 2.7 won't receive the same love as Python 3.4.  And most probably
accept that.  We recognize that core devs put in a lot of time and
energy for a variety of reasons, some of which are just for the love of
the project, and we benefit at little to no cost  We thank them for this.

More information about the Python-list mailing list