On 02/19/2014 05:24 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
Nick Coghlan writes:
> A "user beware, this may be rebased without warning" clone would be
> fine for that purpose, and I suspect in most cases just running rc2
> -> final with such a clone available (preserving Larry's current
> workflow until rc2) would be sufficient to address most concerns.
Larry's already providing tarballs as I understand it.
Yep. Well, just "tarball" so far ;-)
As for a "user beware" clone: I worry about providing anything that
looks/tastes/smells like a repo. Someone could still inadvertently push
those revisions back to trunk, and then we'd have a real mess on our
hands. Publishing tarballs drops the possibility down to about zero.
The conflict here is not Larry's
process, it's the decision to make an ambitious release on a short
time schedule. I sympathize with Ubuntu to some extent -- they have a
business to run, after all. But should Ubuntu desires be distorting a
volunteer RE's process? Was Larry told that commercial interests
should be respected in designing his process?
I haven't seen anything that makes me think we're in trouble. Every
release has its bumps; that's what the rc period is for. I remind you
we're still a month away.
I grant you asyncio is still evolving surprisingly rapidly for an rc.
But it doesn't have an installed base yet, and it's provisional anyway,
so it's not making me anxious.
Worst case, we issue a 3.4.1 on a very accelerated schedule. But it
doesn't seem like it'll be necessary.
//arry/
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
