On 7/18/2015 8:27 PM, Mark Lawrence wrote:
On 19/07/2015 00:36, Terry Reedy wrote:
I asked the following as an off-topic aside in a reply on another
thread. I got one response which presented a point I had not considered.
I would like more viewpoints from 2.7 users.
Background: each x.y.0 release normally gets up to 2 years of bugfixes,
until x.(y+1).0 is released. For 2.7, released summer 2010, the bugfix
period was initially extended to 5 years, ending about now. At the
spring pycon last year, the period was extended to 10 years, with an
emphasis on security and build fixed. My general question is what other
fixes should be made? Some specific forms of this question are the
following.
If the vast majority of Python programmers are focused on 2.7, why are
volunteers to help fix 2.7 bugs so scarce?
Does they all consider it perfect (or sufficient) as is?
Should the core developers who do not personally use 2.7 stop
backporting, because no one cares if they do?
Programmers don't much like doing maintainance work when they're paid to
do it, so why would they volunteer to do it?
Right. So I am asking: if a 3.x user volunteers a 3.x patch and a 3.x
core developer reviews and edits the patch until it is ready to commit,
why should either of them volunteer to do a 2.7 backport that they will
not use?
I am suggesting that if there are 10x as many 2.7only programmers as
3.xonly programmers, and none of the 2.7 programmers is willing to do
the backport *of an already accepted patch*, then maybe it should not be
done at all.
Then even if you do the
work to fix *ANY* bug there is no guarantee that it gets committed.
I am discussing the situation where there *is* a near guarantee (if the
backport works and does not break anything and has not been so heavily
revised as to require a separate review).
--
Terry Jan Reedy
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
