On Sunday, July 19, 2015 at 8:04:20 AM UTC+5:30, Devin Jeanpierre wrote: > On Sat, Jul 18, 2015 at 6:34 PM, Terry Reedy wrote: > > On 7/18/2015 8:27 PM, Mark Lawrence wrote: > >> On 19/07/2015 00:36, Terry Reedy wrote: > >> 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? > > Because it helps even more people. The reason people make upstream > contributions is so that the world benefits. If you only wanted to > help yourself, you'd just patch CPython locally, and not bother > contributing anything upstream. > > > 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. > > That just isn't true. I have backported 3.x patches. Other people have > backported entire modules. > > It gets really boring submitting 2.7-specific patches, though, when > they aren't accepted, and the committers have such a hostile attitude > towards it. I was told by core devs that, instead of fixing bugs in > Python 2, I should just rewrite my app in Python 3. It has even been > implied that bugs in Python 2 are *good*, because that might help with > Python 3 adoption. > > >> 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). > > That is not how I have experienced contribution to CPython. No, the > patches are *not* guaranteed, and in my experience they are not likely > to be accepted. > > If the issue was closed as fixed before I contributed the backported > patch, does anyone even see it?
Not to mention actively hostile attitude to discussions that could at the moment be tangential to current CPython. See (and whole thread) https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-ideas/2015-May/033708.html JFTR: My kids (um... students) have just managed to add devanagari numerals to python. ie we can now do >>> १ + २ 3 [The devanagari equivalent of "12334567890" is "१२३४५६७८९०" And also for those who may not be familiar, devanagari is the script for sanskrit, hindi and a slew of (north) Indian languages ] Regarding this as a fork of python is technically (legalistically) correct but pragmatically ridiculous [unless my students spell as 'Linus Torvalds' or somethin...]. Note that while I dont regard that specific answer as representative of the python-community at large, it is also true that a little help -- even brusque RTFM answers¹ -- would have seen us farther than "If this is what you are up to, get out of here" tl;dr: Not so much a complaint but a indicator that people who could potentially contribute are being prevented from entering ------ ¹ For me, RTFM is always welcome if accompanied by which FM -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list