Return-Path: 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 Subject: Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2015 07:53:50 +0200 References: 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Newsgroups: comp.lang.python Message-ID: 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 Mark Lawrence 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.