Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.python > #94097 > unrolled thread

Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.python

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  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

#94097 — Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?

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.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#94134

On Sunday, July 19, 2015 at 12:54:34 AM UTC-5, dieter wrote:
> 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.

(Not sure who said this, so my apologies if the attribution
is incorrect)
    
Bug fixing is not something most programmers find enjoyable,
at least not for long durations. I prefer to spend my time
solving real world problems, and designing intuitive APIs,
this is what brings me joy. 

Heck, there have been many times that i purposefully re-
invented the wheel simply because solving the problem is
much easier (and more enjoyable) than trying to understand
another programmer's atrocious spaghetti code. Therefor, we
should not be surprised that the bug list is so understaffed
and lacks vigor.

What is becoming apparent to me though, is that most of the
complaints i had voiced (years ago) about the exclusive
attitudes, horrible interface, and the burdensome workflow
of submitting patches is contributing to the lack of
interest in this process -> and it seems i am not alone!

I can remember twice getting excited about helping out, to
only quickly become frustrated with the politics and
interface. Why should i have to fight just to volunteer?
What's the point? The whole system is self defeating.

Time for some introspection folks.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#94213

Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> writes:

> On Sunday, July 19, 2015 at 12:54:34 AM UTC-5, dieter wrote:
>> 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.
>
> (Not sure who said this, so my apologies if the attribution
> is incorrect)
>     
> Bug fixing is not something most programmers find enjoyable,
> at least not for long durations. I prefer to spend my time
> solving real world problems, and designing intuitive APIs,
> this is what brings me joy. 

This was me.

And I am like you. I do not hunt bugs I find in a bug tracker
but only bugs I get hit in real world problems.
But once hit, I usually find a solution (or work around)
and like to share it with others who might get hit in the future.
That's why I take the time to file bug reports (often with patches).

But when those bug reports and patches seem to be ignored by
the core development team - I look for other means, such as
external packages.


> Heck, there have been many times that i purposefully re-
> invented the wheel simply because solving the problem is
> much easier (and more enjoyable) than trying to understand
> another programmer's atrocious spaghetti code. Therefor, we
> should not be surprised that the bug list is so understaffed
> and lacks vigor.

In my experience (with other open source projects), I think
almost none of my patches was ever taken over without modifications.
In my view, the changes were usually of a cosmetic nature.
For me, this is fine - as long as the problem gets fixed.

> ...
> What is becoming apparent to me though, is that most of the
> complaints i had voiced (years ago) about the exclusive
> attitudes, horrible interface, and the burdensome workflow
> of submitting patches is contributing to the lack of
> interest in this process -> and it seems i am not alone!
>
> I can remember twice getting excited about helping out, to
> only quickly become frustrated with the politics and
> interface. Why should i have to fight just to volunteer?

Experience like this (in another project) causes me to
be very reluctant to become a core contributor (in the sense
of actively fixing things in the core). You need a lot of knowledge
(coding conventions, test setup, change workflow, ...) whichs
goes far beyond the functionality of the fix -- and you
must be resilient, patient and maybe even fighting to get the work
accepted.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#94266

On Monday, July 20, 2015 at 1:30:03 AM UTC-5, dieter wrote: 
> Experience like this (in another project) causes me to be
> very reluctant to become a core contributor (in the sense
> of actively fixing things in the core). You need a lot of
> knowledge (coding conventions, test setup, change
> workflow, ...) whichs goes far beyond the functionality of
> the fix -- and you must be resilient, patient and maybe
> even fighting to get the work accepted.

Thanks for sharing your experiences. I hope many more will
come forward and do the same. We are obviously ignoring some
talented people out there, and as i stressed before, we need
to prevent further hemorrhaging of this talent. I know there
are tons of folks who will get involved if we can remove the
onerous barriers.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.python

csiph-web