So now that we've released 2.6 and are working hard on shepherding 3.0
out the door, it's time to worry about the next set of releases. :)
I propose that we dramatically shorten our release cycle for 2.7/3.1
to roughly a year and put a strong focus stabilizing all the new
goodies we included in th
Benjamin Peterson wrote:
I propose that we dramatically shorten our release cycle for 2.7/3.1
to roughly a year and put a strong focus stabilizing all the new
goodies we included in the last release(s). In the 3.x branch, we
should continue to solidify the new code and features that were
introduc
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Oct 3, 2008, at 5:26 PM, Benjamin Peterson wrote:
So now that we've released 2.6 and are working hard on shepherding 3.0
out the door, it's time to worry about the next set of releases. :)
I propose that we dramatically shorten our release cycle
On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 3:56 PM, Barry Warsaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Oct 3, 2008, at 5:26 PM, Benjamin Peterson wrote:
>
>> So now that we've released 2.6 and are working hard on shepherding 3.0
>> out the door, it's time to worry about th
Brett Cannon wrote:
Christian rightly points out that with four active trees, we're going to a
pretty big challenge on our hands. How do other large open source projects
handle similar situations?
Beats me. Are that many projects crazy enough to have that many active branches?
Is it really
Brett Cannon python.org> writes:
>
> Beats me. Are that many projects crazy enough to have that many active
> branches?
Any project using branch-driven development has many active branches. Our
specificity is that we must maintain in sync two branches (trunk, py3k) which
have widely diverged fro
> Is it really that bad? Once 3.0 is released, it's not like we're going
> to be patching 2.6 and 3.0 all that much.
And unfortunately so. The 2.5 branch doesn't get the attention that it
should, let alone the 2.4 branch. We will continue to "have" them (even
if only for security patches).
Regard
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Oct 3, 2008, at 7:34 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
Wow! I guess release.py is going to get really automated then. =) That
or you are going to manage to con more of us to help out (and even cut
the release ourselves).
release.py is really coming along
On Sat, Oct 4, 2008 at 00:56, Barry Warsaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think 2.7 should continue along the path of convergence toward 3.x. The
> vision some of us talked about at Pycon was that at some point down the
> line, maybe there's no difference between "python2.9 -3" and "python3.3 -2".
