Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?

dieter dieter at handshake.de
Mon Jul 20 08:46:20 CEST 2015


Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson at gmail.com> writes:

> On Sunday, July 19, 2015 at 1:44:25 PM UTC-5, bream... at gmail.com wrote:
>> No, it's simply that nobody can force volunteers to back
>> port something when they're just not interested in doing
>> the work, for whatever reason.  Hence my statement above,
>> of which you have focused on the last eight words.
>
> Well i argue that the free labor *WOULD* exists *IF* the
> patching mechanism were more inclusive and intuitive.

Thinking of myself, I am not sure. Ensuring the quality of
a "distribution" goes far beyond a single bug fix. While I usually
are ready to share a bug fix I have found, I am reluctant to get
involved in the complete quality ensurance process (such as
the test suite, review process, style guides, ...). This would
require far more time than that for analysing and fixing the initial
problem. Thus, from my point of view, it calls for a "division of labor" --
where quality ensurance experts do the integration of my patch/backport.




More information about the Python-list mailing list