Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?

Return-Path	<python-python-list@m.gmane.org>
X-Original-To	python-list@python.org
Delivered-To	python-list@mail.python.org
X-Spam-Status	OK 0.000
X-Spam-Evidence	'H': 1.00; 'S': 0.00; 'ignored': 0.05; 'versions,': 0.05; 'lines.': 0.07; 'patches': 0.09; 'received:80.91': 0.09; 'received:80.91.229': 0.09; 'received:gmane.org': 0.09; 'received:list': 0.09; 'subject:2.7': 0.09; 'vast': 0.09; 'bug': 0.10; 'python': 0.10; '2.7': 0.13; '(but': 0.15; 'arrived': 0.16; 'attitude:': 0.16; 'blame': 0.16; 'bugs,': 0.16; 'cares': 0.16; 'fixing.': 0.16; 'projects:': 0.16; 'received:80.91.229.3': 0.16; 'received:dip0.t-ipconnect.de': 0.16; 'received:plane.gmane.org': 0.16; 'received:t-ipconnect.de': 0.16; 'reports)': 0.16; 'subject:non': 0.16; 'fix': 0.21; 'affected': 0.22; 'fixing': 0.22; 'lawrence': 0.22; 'minor': 0.22; '(or': 0.23; 'header:User-Agent:1': 0.26; 'developers': 0.26; 'header:X-Complaints-To:1': 0.26; 'skip:" 20': 0.26; 'earlier': 0.27; 'external': 0.27; 'points': 0.27; 'bugs': 0.27; 'separate': 0.27; 'thread,': 0.29; 'thus,': 0.29; 'volunteers': 0.29; 'weak': 0.29; 'handled': 0.29; 'programmers': 0.30; 'core': 0.32; 'related': 0.32; 'point': 0.33; 'problem': 0.33; 'source': 0.33; 'grateful': 0.33; 'is?': 0.33; 'open': 0.33; 'could': 0.35; 'done': 0.35; 'acceptable': 0.35; 'quite': 0.35; 'but': 0.36; 'should': 0.36; 'there': 0.36; '(and': 0.36; 'to:addr:python- list': 0.36; 'subject:?': 0.36; 'subject:: ': 0.37; 'really': 0.37; 'received:org': 0.37; 'aspects': 0.37; 'charset:us-ascii': 0.37; 'someone': 0.38; 'why': 0.39; 'does': 0.39; 'subject:-': 0.39; 'to:addr:python.org': 0.40; 'mark': 0.40; 'received:de': 0.40; 'some': 0.40; 'high': 0.60; 'caused': 0.61; 'personally': 0.61; 'more': 0.63; 'received:217': 0.66; 'finally': 0.70; 'integrated': 0.72; '2.7.': 0.84
X-Injected-Via-Gmane	http://gmane.org/
To	python-list@python.org
From	dieter <dieter@handshake.de>
Subject	Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?
Date	Sun, 19 Jul 2015 07:53:50 +0200
References	<moenuj$f11$1@ger.gmane.org> <moeqtn$mh0$1@ger.gmane.org>
Mime-Version	1.0
Content-Type	text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host	pd9e08e8f.dip0.t-ipconnect.de
User-Agent	Gnus/5.1008 (Gnus v5.10.8) XEmacs/21.4.22 (linux)
Cancel-Lock	sha1:WOB60dl8IKWMbhzhXo9KTvZgEVU=
X-BeenThere	python-list@python.org
X-Mailman-Version	2.1.20+
Precedence	list
List-Id	General discussion list for the Python programming language <python-list.python.org>
List-Unsubscribe	<https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-list>, <mailto:python-list-request@python.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive	<http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list/>
List-Post	<mailto:python-list@python.org>
List-Help	<mailto:python-list-request@python.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe	<https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list>, <mailto:python-list-request@python.org?subject=subscribe>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.python
Message-ID	<mailman.700.1437285244.3674.python-list@python.org> (permalink)
Lines	44
NNTP-Posting-Host	2001:888:2000:d::a6
X-Trace	1437285244 news.xs4all.nl 2925 [2001:888:2000:d::a6]:43591
X-Complaints-To	abuse@xs4all.nl
Path	csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!news.stben.net!border1.nntp.ams1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed8.news.xs4all.nl!newsgate.cistron.nl!newsgate.news.xs4all.nl!post.news.xs4all.nl!not-for-mail
Xref	csiph.com comp.lang.python:94097

Show key headers only | View raw

Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> writes:
> ...
>> If the vast majority of Python programmers are focused on 2.7, why are
>> volunteers to help fix 2.7 bugs so scarce?

I have not done much work related to Python bug fixing. But, I had
bad experience with other open source projects: many of my patches
(and bug reports) have been ignored over decades. This caused me
to change my attitude: I now report bugs (sometimes with patches)
and publish a potential solution in a separate package
(--> "dm.zopepatches.*", "dm.zodbpatches.*"). This way, affected
people can use a solution even if the core developpers don't care.

>From my point of view: if you want help with fixing bugs,
you must ensure that there is a high probability that those contributions
really find their way into the main development lines.
As I understand from other messages in this thread, this is also
a problem with Python bug fixing.

>> Does they all consider it perfect (or sufficient) as is?

I have not much blame for Python 2.7. I see a few minor points

  *  "pdb" is quite weak - but I could fix some (but
     by far not all) aspects in "dm.pdb".

  *  "https" has been weakly handled in earlier versions,
     but someone has done the Python 3 backport work in
     an external package before the backport finally arrived in
     Python 2.7.

>> Should the core developers who do not personally use 2.7 stop
>> backporting, because no one cares if they do?

I am grateful that the above mentioned "https" backport
was finally integrated into Python 2.7 -- even though
I find it acceptable to use an external package to get it.

Thus, there are people who care. Of course, I will not tell
core developers that they must do backporting. If they don't
more external packages will come into existence which contain
(unofficial) backports.

Back to comp.lang.python | Previous | Next — Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? dieter <dieter@handshake.de> - 2015-07-19 07:53 +0200
  Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2015-07-19 09:56 -0700
    Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? dieter <dieter@handshake.de> - 2015-07-20 08:29 +0200
      Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2015-07-20 21:09 -0700

csiph-web