On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 6:04 PM, Guido van Rossum <gu...@python.org> wrote: > On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 2:52 PM, Ian Cordasco <graffatcolmin...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> >> On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 4:14 PM, Gregory P. Smith <g...@krypto.org> wrote: >> > >> > On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 12:24 AM Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> On 29 May 2015 11:01 am, "Victor Stinner" <victor.stin...@gmail.com> >> >> wrote: >> >> > >> >> > Why not continue to enhance Python 3 instead of wasting our time with >> >> > Python 2? We have limited resources in term of developers to maintain >> >> > Python. >> >> > >> >> > (I'm not talking about fixing *bugs* in Python 2 which is fine with >> >> > me.) >> >> >> >> I'm actually OK with volunteers deciding that even fixing bugs in 2.7 >> >> isn't inherently rewarding enough for them to be willing to do it for >> >> free >> >> on their own time. >> > >> > >> > That is 100% okay. >> > >> > What is not okay is for python-dev representatives to respond to users >> > (in >> > any list/forum/channel) reporting bugs in 2.7 or asking if a fix in 3 >> > can be >> > backported to 2.7 with things akin to "just use Python 3" or "sorry, 2.7 >> > is >> > critical fixes only. move to python 3 already." This is actively driving >> > our >> > largest users away. I bring this up because a user was bemoaning how >> > useless they feel python core devs are because of this attitude >> > recently. >> > Leading to feelings of wishing to just abandon CPython if not Python all >> > together. >> > >> > I'm sure I have even made some of those responses myself (sorry!). My >> > point >> > here is: know it. recognize it. don't do it anymore. It harms the >> > community. >> > >> > A correct and accurate response to desires to make non-api-breaking >> > changes >> > in 2.7 is "Patches that do not change any APIs for 2.7 are welcome in >> > the >> > issue tracker." possibly including "I don't have the bandwidth to review >> > 2.7 >> > changes, find someone on python-dev to review and champion this for you >> > if >> > you need it." Finding someone may not always be easy. But at least is >> > still >> > the "patches welcome" attitude and suggests that the work can be done if >> > someone is willing to do it. Lets make a concerted effort to not be >> > hostile >> > and against it by default. >> > >> > Ex: Is someone with a python application that is a million of lines >> > supposed >> > to have everyone involved in that drop the productive work they are >> > doing >> > and spend that porting their existing application to python 3 because we >> > have so far failed to provide the tools to make that migration easy? >> > No. >> > Empathize with our community. Feel their pain. (and everyone who is >> > working on tools to aid the transition: keep doing that! Our users are >> > gonna >> > need it unless we don't want them as users anymore.) >> > >> > We committed to supporting 2.7 until 2020 in 2014 per >> > https://hg.python.org/peps/rev/76d43e52d978. That means backports of >> > important bug or performance fixes should at least be allowed on the >> > table, >> > even if hairy, even if you won't work on them yourselves on a volunteer >> > basis. This is the first long term support release of Python ever. This >> > is >> > what LTS means. LTS could also stand for Learn To Support... >> >> At the same time, they can ask for it, but if people aren't motivated >> to do the work for it, it won't happen. We should be encouraging (and >> maybe even mentoring) these people who are desperately in need of the >> fixes to be backported, to backport the patches themselves. With that >> done, it can go through review and we can maybe get those fixes in >> faster if we can also get a larger group of reviews. >> >> The problem consists of a few parts: >> >> - We're all volunteers > > > Speak for yourself. There are a fair number of people on this thread whose > employer pays them to work on Python. And this thread originated when a > patch was being contributed by people who were also paid by their employer > to do all the dirty work (including benchmarks). And yet they were > (initially) given the cold shoulder by some "high and mighty" Python 3 > zealots. This attitude need to change. > >> >> - Volunteers are going to work on what interests them >> - Python 2.7 maintenance doesn't seem to interest many of our >> volunteers currently >> >> Perhaps we should explain this to each of the people requesting >> backports to (ideally) encourage them. > > > Please let someone else do the explaining. I don't want to have to do the > damage control after you "explain" something.
Good to know. I'll stop trying to make spare time to review patches then. _______________________________________________ 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
