Path: csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!news.redatomik.org!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed7.news.xs4all.nl!newsgate.cistron.nl!newsgate.news.xs4all.nl!post.news.xs4all.nl!not-for-mail Return-Path: X-Original-To: python-list@python.org Delivered-To: python-list@mail.python.org X-Spam-Status: OK 0.007 X-Spam-Evidence: '*H*': 0.99; '*S*': 0.00; 'fixes': 0.05; 'from:addr:yahoo.co.uk': 0.05; 'allowed.': 0.07; '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; 'bug': 0.10; '2.7': 0.13; 'finish.': 0.16; 'fixes.': 0.16; 'made,': 0.16; 'received:80.91.229.3': 0.16; 'received:plane.gmane.org': 0.16; 'reedy': 0.16; 'subject:non': 0.16; 'who?': 0.16; 'wrote:': 0.16; 'language': 0.19; 'contributed': 0.20; '3.x': 0.22; 'lawrence': 0.22; 'patch': 0.24; 'header:In-Reply-To:1': 0.24; 'header:User- Agent:1': 0.26; 'header:X-Complaints-To:1': 0.26; 'work.': 0.30; 'code': 0.30; 'somebody': 0.30; 'language.': 0.32; 'point': 0.33; 'problem': 0.33; 'idle': 0.33; 'surely': 0.33; 'so,': 0.35; 'done': 0.35; 'quite': 0.35; 'but': 0.36; 'should': 0.36; 'to:addr :python-list': 0.36; 'subject:?': 0.36; 'pm,': 0.36; 'subject:: ': 0.37; 'received:org': 0.37; 'doing': 0.38; 'experience,': 0.38; 'subject:-': 0.39; 'well.': 0.40; 'to:addr:python.org': 0.40; 'mark': 0.40; 'your': 0.60; 'share': 0.61; 'charset:windows-1252': 0.62; 'more': 0.63; 'our': 0.64; 'respect': 0.65; 'improvements': 0.66; 'feeling': 0.72; 'lack': 0.76; '2.7.': 0.84; 'pythonistas,': 0.84; 'reviewers.': 0.84; 'writing,': 0.91 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: python-list@python.org From: Mark Lawrence Subject: Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2015 14:42:32 +0100 References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: host-78-147-20-184.as13285.net User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.1.0 In-Reply-To: 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: 29 NNTP-Posting-Host: 2001:888:2000:d::a6 X-Trace: 1437313378 news.xs4all.nl 2966 [2001:888:2000:d::a6]:38509 X-Complaints-To: abuse@xs4all.nl Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.python:94115 On 19/07/2015 03:13, Terry Reedy wrote: > On 7/18/2015 7:50 PM, Devin Jeanpierre wrote: >> to 2.7, surely bug fixes are also allowed? > > Of course, allowed. But should they be made, and if so, by who? The people who want the fixes. > >> I have contributed both performance improvements and bug fixes to 2.7. >> In my experience, the problem is not the lack of contributors, it's >> the lack of code reviewers. > > I understand the general problem quite well. But feeling that one would > have to do a 2.7 backport after writing, editing, or reviewing a 3.x > patch can discourage doing a review in the first place. I am at that > point now with respect to Idle patches. Do the work with the 3.x patch and finish. Let somebody who needs the patch for 2.7 do the work. If nobody steps up to the mark that's not Terry Reedy's problem, you've done way more than your fair share over the years. -- My fellow Pythonistas, ask not what our language can do for you, ask what you can do for our language. Mark Lawrence