X-Received: by 10.66.65.75 with SMTP id v11mr10802619pas.7.1437691787193; Thu, 23 Jul 2015 15:49:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 10.182.91.100 with SMTP id cd4mr146906obb.1.1437691787129; Thu, 23 Jul 2015 15:49:47 -0700 (PDT)
Path: csiph.com!optima2.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!news.glorb.com!f3no2008336igg.0!news-out.google.com!o13ni287igw.0!nntp.google.com!pg9no3486911igb.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.lang.python
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 15:49:46 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <mailman.897.1437625595.3674.python-list@python.org>
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=70.196.83.121; posting-account=h3aEwQoAAACiuqX-oR3gvCVFm8lLHoWj
NNTP-Posting-Host: 70.196.83.121
References: <moenuj$f11$1@ger.gmane.org> <mailman.897.1437625595.3674.python-list@python.org>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <69ec07d2-eae9-409c-b54a-ba0fccd47015@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?
From: Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 22:49:47 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.python:94475

On Wednesday, July 22, 2015 at 11:26:50 PM UTC-5, Jason Swails wrote:
> I know my experiences don't hold true for everybody, but I
> also don't think they are uncommon (I know several
> colleagues that share many aspects of them).=A0 And for me,
> the *better* Python 2.7 becomes, and the longer it's kept
> around, the easier (and more fun!) it makes my transition
> to Python 3.=A0 So for me at least, arguments like "don't
> make Python 2.7 too good or people won't switch" are not
> only wrong, but in actuality counter-productive.

Thanks for sharing your story. You offer a compelling
argument for maintaining Py2.x in peak condition for many=20
years.=20