On 23 June 2013 12:56, Benjamin Peterson <benja...@python.org> wrote: > 2013/6/22 Eli Bendersky <eli...@gmail.com>: >> Yes, this makes sense too. >> >> In general there seems to be an agreement, so it would be great to document >> in some place. Many years will pass before we have another "special" release >> like Python 2.7, so it's worth spending an extra few minutes to have this >> written down. PEP 404 seems to be a reasonable place - any objections? >> Benjamin, what do you think? > > PEP 373 is better given in that it deals with 2.7 and not a > non-existent 2.8 release. :) > > I agree not every theoretically applicable bugfix needs to land in > 2.7. If it's been broken for all of the 2.x series, it probably > doesn't need to be fixed now. (The most important bugs to fix are the > ones we introduced in the last bugfix release.) I'm also open to and > have been open to build system changes that keep Python compiling even > though they can break things (see cross-compiling). Even limited > not-build system "features" like retrofitting bsddb so it could > compile with a non-ancient version of bsddb can be acceptable.
FWIW, this aligns with my understanding of the purpose of the extended maintenance period for Python 2.7 - not so much that it receives "new" bug fixes, but more that we ensure it keeps building and otherwise working reliably as the wider technology ecosystem changes around it (for example, the cross-compilation changes to help cope with the rise of ARM systems, especially the Raspberry Pi). Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia _______________________________________________ python-committers mailing list python-committers@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers
