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

Groups > comp.lang.python > #94115 > 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? Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-07-19 14:42 +0100
    Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Cecil Westerhof <Cecil@decebal.nl> - 2015-07-19 18:10 +0200
      Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-07-19 17:38 +0100
        Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Cecil Westerhof <Cecil@decebal.nl> - 2015-07-19 19:14 +0200
          Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-07-19 18:54 +0100
            Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2015-07-19 11:28 -0700
              Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? breamoreboy@gmail.com - 2015-07-19 11:44 -0700
                Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2015-07-19 12:13 -0700
                  Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? breamoreboy@gmail.com - 2015-07-19 13:21 -0700
                    Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2015-07-20 12:36 +1000
                      Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-07-19 21:07 -0700
                      Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-07-22 00:40 +0100
                  Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? dieter <dieter@handshake.de> - 2015-07-20 08:46 +0200
                    Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2015-07-20 22:00 -0700
          Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? dieter <dieter@handshake.de> - 2015-07-20 08:36 +0200
      Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2015-07-19 13:01 -0600
        Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2015-07-19 12:28 -0700
          Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? breamoreboy@gmail.com - 2015-07-19 13:36 -0700
            Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2015-07-19 14:27 -0700
              Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? breamoreboy@gmail.com - 2015-07-19 17:45 -0700
                Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2015-07-19 18:25 -0700
        Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Cecil Westerhof <Cecil@decebal.nl> - 2015-07-19 22:05 +0200
          Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-07-19 21:28 +0100
            Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Cecil Westerhof <Cecil@decebal.nl> - 2015-07-20 00:10 +0200
              Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-07-19 23:51 +0100
                Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Cecil Westerhof <Cecil@decebal.nl> - 2015-07-20 01:23 +0200
                  Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-07-20 01:27 +0100
                    Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2015-07-19 17:49 -0700
                      Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? breamoreboy@gmail.com - 2015-07-19 18:26 -0700
                        Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2015-07-19 18:35 -0700
                          Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2015-07-20 13:12 +1000
                            Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2015-07-19 21:30 -0600
                              Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-07-20 15:59 +1000
                                Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2015-07-20 20:58 -0700
                                  Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-07-21 18:33 +1000
                      Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2015-07-19 19:58 -0700
                  Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Michael Torrie <torriem@gmail.com> - 2015-07-19 23:33 -0600
                  Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Michael Torrie <torriem@gmail.com> - 2015-07-20 00:39 -0600
                Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2015-07-20 12:49 +1000
        Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2015-07-20 12:32 +1000
      Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? dieter <dieter@handshake.de> - 2015-07-20 08:06 +0200
      Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? dieter <dieter@handshake.de> - 2015-07-20 08:10 +0200

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#94115 — Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?

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

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#94126

On Sunday 19 Jul 2015 15:42 CEST, Mark Lawrence wrote:

> 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.

Babies want clean diapers. So babies have to change diapers
themselves?

-- 
Cecil Westerhof
Senior Software Engineer
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/cecilwesterhof

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

#94131

On 19/07/2015 17:10, Cecil Westerhof wrote:
> On Sunday 19 Jul 2015 15:42 CEST, Mark Lawrence wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> Babies want clean diapers. So babies have to change diapers
> themselves?
>

That has to be the worst analogy I've ever read.  We are discussing 
backporting working patches, *NOT* having to go through the whole 
shooting match from scratch.

-- 
My fellow Pythonistas, ask not what our language can do for you, ask
what you can do for our language.

Mark Lawrence

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

#94137

On Sunday 19 Jul 2015 18:38 CEST, Mark Lawrence wrote:

> On 19/07/2015 17:10, Cecil Westerhof wrote:
>> On Sunday 19 Jul 2015 15:42 CEST, Mark Lawrence wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> Babies want clean diapers. So babies have to change diapers
>> themselves?
>>
>
> That has to be the worst analogy I've ever read.  We are discussing
> backporting working patches, *NOT* having to go through the whole
> shooting match from scratch.

You think so? I think that a lot of people who are using 2.7 would
like to have the fixes. They know how to use Python, but they would
not now how to implement a patch. That is why I made this comment.

Comments are (almost) always an exaggeration. When someone tells me:
“I have been 1.000 times to the store to get my money back”, most of
the time I would not take this literally, but understand it means very
often.

-- 
Cecil Westerhof
Senior Software Engineer
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/cecilwesterhof

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

#94141

On 19/07/2015 18:14, Cecil Westerhof wrote:
> On Sunday 19 Jul 2015 18:38 CEST, Mark Lawrence wrote:
>
>> On 19/07/2015 17:10, Cecil Westerhof wrote:
>>> On Sunday 19 Jul 2015 15:42 CEST, Mark Lawrence wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Babies want clean diapers. So babies have to change diapers
>>> themselves?
>>>
>>
>> That has to be the worst analogy I've ever read.  We are discussing
>> backporting working patches, *NOT* having to go through the whole
>> shooting match from scratch.
>
> You think so? I think that a lot of people who are using 2.7 would
> like to have the fixes. They know how to use Python, but they would
> not now how to implement a patch. That is why I made this comment.
>

I don't think so, I know.  If they want the patches that badly and can't 
do it themselves they'll have to grin and bear it, or do a bit of 
begging, or pay somebody to do it for them.  Unless the PSF or another 
body does the paying, something which I vaguely recall hearing about.

-- 
My fellow Pythonistas, ask not what our language can do for you, ask
what you can do for our language.

Mark Lawrence

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

#94147

On Sunday, July 19, 2015 at 12:55:06 PM UTC-5, Mark Lawrence wrote:
> I don't think so, I know.  If they want the patches that
> badly and can't do it themselves they'll have to grin and
> bear it, or do a bit of begging, or pay somebody to do it
> for them. 

It's all about the effing money then? So the barriers are not a
bug, but a feature? Mr. Gates would be *SO* proud!

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

#94148

On Sunday, July 19, 2015 at 7:28:15 PM UTC+1, Rick Johnson wrote:
> On Sunday, July 19, 2015 at 12:55:06 PM UTC-5, Mark Lawrence wrote:
> > I don't think so, I know.  If they want the patches that
> > badly and can't do it themselves they'll have to grin and
> > bear it, or do a bit of begging, or pay somebody to do it
> > for them. 
> 
> It's all about the effing money then? So the barriers are not a
> bug, but a feature? Mr. Gates would be *SO* proud!

No, it's simply that nobody can force volunteers to back port something when they're just not interested in doing the work, for whatever reason.  Hence my statement above, of which you have focussed on the last eight words.

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

#94152

On Sunday, July 19, 2015 at 1:44:25 PM UTC-5, bream...@gmail.com wrote:
> No, it's simply that nobody can force volunteers to back
> port something when they're just not interested in doing
> the work, for whatever reason.  Hence my statement above,
> of which you have focused on the last eight words.

Well i argue that the free labor *WOULD* exists *IF* the
patching mechanism were more inclusive and intuitive.

PS: My apologies to Mark Lawrence for mis-attributing the 
quote to him. I seem to be having a bad quote day.

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

#94160

On Sunday, July 19, 2015 at 8:13:50 PM UTC+1, Rick Johnson wrote:
> On Sunday, July 19, 2015 at 1:44:25 PM UTC-5, bream...@gmail.com wrote:
> > No, it's simply that nobody can force volunteers to back
> > port something when they're just not interested in doing
> > the work, for whatever reason.  Hence my statement above,
> > of which you have focused on the last eight words.
> 
> Well i argue that the free labor *WOULD* exists *IF* the
> patching mechanism were more inclusive and intuitive.
> 

"More inclusive"?  Any man and his dog can get an account on the issue tracker?  Perhaps it isn't "intuitive", but then reading the development guide tends to help.

All in all though I have to admit that overall it's a really onerous task.  Once you've produced the patch you have to go to all the trouble of logging on to the issue tracker, finding the appropriate issue and uploading the patch.  You may even be inclined to make a comment.  In this case this entire process could take as much as two whole minutes.

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

#94192

On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 06:21 am, breamoreboy@gmail.com wrote:

> All in all though I have to admit that overall it's a really onerous task.
>  Once you've produced the patch you have to go to all the trouble of
> logging on to the issue tracker, finding the appropriate issue and
> uploading the patch.  You may even be inclined to make a comment.  In this
> case this entire process could take as much as two whole minutes.

It's very interesting that you ignore the two hardest parts of the process:

(1) Producing the patch in the first place.

(2) Convincing those with appropriate commit rights to accept the patch.


-- 
Steven

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

#94203

Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> writes:
> It's very interesting that you ignore the two hardest parts of the process:
> (1) Producing the patch in the first place.
> (2) Convincing those with appropriate commit rights to accept the patch.

2 is often harder than 1.  Or consider the case when you report an
obvious bug and then have to talk yourself blue in the face to convince
others that it really is a bug.

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

#94325

On 20/07/2015 03:36, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 06:21 am, breamoreboy@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> All in all though I have to admit that overall it's a really onerous task.
>>   Once you've produced the patch you have to go to all the trouble of
>> logging on to the issue tracker, finding the appropriate issue and
>> uploading the patch.  You may even be inclined to make a comment.  In this
>> case this entire process could take as much as two whole minutes.
>
> It's very interesting that you ignore the two hardest parts of the process:
>
> (1) Producing the patch in the first place.
>
> (2) Convincing those with appropriate commit rights to accept the patch.
>
>

I didn't actually intend to ignore anything, only the whole context has 
been altered as you've snipped the previous paragraph that led into the 
above.

I don't know about the hardest part of the process, but I believe that 
the actual commit part is a PITA regardless of the size of the patch 
involved.  The good news on that front is that the core workflow project 
has kick started again.  The bad news is I haven't got the faintest idea 
what the timescale is, a year, two, I've simply no idea?

One thing I do know is that it has to be made to work, as I doubt that 
there's a single member of the community who can be happy with the 
current workflow.  Still in a way that is a good sign as it shows that 
currently Python is a victim of its own success.

Once the core workflow project has succeeded, and I'll repeat that it 
has to, then Python will definitely achieve what Pinky and the Brain 
failed to do :)

-- 
My fellow Pythonistas, ask not what our language can do for you, ask
what you can do for our language.

Mark Lawrence

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

#94216

Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> writes:

> On Sunday, July 19, 2015 at 1:44:25 PM UTC-5, bream...@gmail.com wrote:
>> No, it's simply that nobody can force volunteers to back
>> port something when they're just not interested in doing
>> the work, for whatever reason.  Hence my statement above,
>> of which you have focused on the last eight words.
>
> Well i argue that the free labor *WOULD* exists *IF* the
> patching mechanism were more inclusive and intuitive.

Thinking of myself, I am not sure. Ensuring the quality of
a "distribution" goes far beyond a single bug fix. While I usually
are ready to share a bug fix I have found, I am reluctant to get
involved in the complete quality ensurance process (such as
the test suite, review process, style guides, ...). This would
require far more time than that for analysing and fixing the initial
problem. Thus, from my point of view, it calls for a "division of labor" --
where quality ensurance experts do the integration of my patch/backport.

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

#94270

On Monday, July 20, 2015 at 1:47:00 AM UTC-5, dieter wrote:
> Thinking of myself, I am not sure. Ensuring the quality of
> a "distribution" goes far beyond a single bug fix. While I
> usually are ready to share a bug fix I have found, I am
> reluctant to get involved in the complete quality
> ensurance process (such as the test suite, review process,
> style guides, ...).

Of course. I believe there are many folks out there like
yourself, who come across this or that bug, but don't bother
sharing the patch because of the reluctance to deal with red
tape or fear of a brow beating.

Participation, on a regular basis, requires a special kind
of person with special talents. For example: Terry Reedy has
been working over at "pybugs" for years. I don't think
everyone wants to be, or can be, a Terry Reedy. But i do
believe the current system is presenting obstacles to those
that could offer help in whatever limited capacity they can
handle.


OUTLINE OF FOUR POSSIBLE LEVELS OF PARTICIPATION:

  LEVEL1: Anyone, no matter what coding skills they have,
  can bring attention to a problem, and allow someone else
  to write the code. "HEY, I FOUND A PROBLEM -> BLAH, BLAH,
  BLAH". Also, not all programmers are experts with the
  written word. And a poorly described problem can result in
  it never getting the attention is deserves. We not only
  need coders, we need writer who can peruse the complaints
  and reformat them for comprehension and coherency. We need
  a diversity of talent, and not just "code monkey talent",
  all forms!
    
  LEVEL2: Even someone with "sketchy knowledge" of the fix
  can write up an outline, or a list of steps that could be
  taken, in order to fix the problem. Possibly pointing out
  some of the subtle bugs that may crop up if not carefully
  considered. Very few of us know *everything* about every
  module or dark corner of Python. For example, I've talked
  with a few "grand masters", who had little or no knowledge
  of Tkinter or IDLE.
    
  LEVEL3: The next level would be to write draft code. Maybe
  the code would not even be considered "professional". But
  it could serve as a "rough draft" that a more experienced
  programmer can build from.
  
  LEVEL4 The last level is a fully functioning patch. This
  would be written, or approved by, one of the trustees.

And even if the "contributor" can only participate at level1
or level2, if they find the process is smooth, then they are
more likely to participate again. And as they become more
experienced, will offer help at a higher level of expertise.
I know the wheel is being re-invented all the time, simply
because of the obstacles inherent in the patching process.
  
There needs to exist a linear path from bug to patch. We
don't want Terry Reedy wasting his expertise on the first
two or three levels, no, we need to place him at a level
where his talents are not wasted reading ridiculous feature
requests that will never go beyond level1 or level2.

My point is, we're unproductive because: (1) we're scaring
away intermediate and specialized talents (2) and we're mis-
applying the limited talent we do have.

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

#94214

Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> writes:

> On 19/07/2015 18:14, Cecil Westerhof wrote:
>> On Sunday 19 Jul 2015 18:38 CEST, Mark Lawrence wrote:
> ...
>> You think so? I think that a lot of people who are using 2.7 would
>> like to have the fixes. They know how to use Python, but they would
>> not now how to implement a patch. That is why I made this comment.
>>
>
> I don't think so, I know.  If they want the patches that badly and
> can't do it themselves they'll have to grin and bear it, or do a bit
> of begging, or pay somebody to do it for them.

Well, there might be "budget constraints" and the difficulty
to find someone capable of doing a backport.

We are doing here some form of "begging". Thus, we are in line with
your recommendations ;-)

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

#94149

On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 10:10 AM, Cecil Westerhof <Cecil@decebal.nl> wrote:
> On Sunday 19 Jul 2015 15:42 CEST, Mark Lawrence wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> Babies want clean diapers. So babies have to change diapers
> themselves?

Poor analogy. Babies need others to change their diapers for them
because they're not capable of doing it for themselves.

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

#94155

On Sunday, July 19, 2015 at 2:02:12 PM UTC-5, Ian wrote:
> Poor analogy. Babies need others to change their diapers
> for them because they're not capable of doing it for
> themselves.

Duh! That was the point of his analogy, Ian. *ALL* Python
programmers need the patches. Whether or not they possess
the skill to create them is irrelevant.

But the baby is not the only victim if the diapers are not
changed. Imagine the foul odors that "rumors of bugginess"
will emit into the household, and if unchecked long enough,
out into the neighborhood.

A some point a social worker will be dispatched, and the
baby will be taken away to a home that provides the
necessary sanitary conditions. But not before the parents
will be thrown in prison, ridiculed, and forgotten. The end
result is a broken family Ian.

Is any of this sinking in?

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

#94162

On Sunday, July 19, 2015 at 8:29:06 PM UTC+1, Rick Johnson wrote:
> On Sunday, July 19, 2015 at 2:02:12 PM UTC-5, Ian wrote:
> > Poor analogy. Babies need others to change their diapers
> > for them because they're not capable of doing it for
> > themselves.
> 
> Duh! That was the point of his analogy, Ian. *ALL* Python
> programmers need the patches. Whether or not they possess
> the skill to create them is irrelevant.
> 

Wrong, not all programmers need the patches as a lot of people couldn't care two hoots about 2.7.  I'm one of them.  If a programmer can't create a patch then they're in the wrong job.

> But the baby is not the only victim if the diapers are not
> changed. Imagine the foul odors that "rumors of bugginess"
> will emit into the household, and if unchecked long enough,
> out into the neighborhood.
> 
> A some point a social worker will be dispatched, and the
> baby will be taken away to a home that provides the
> necessary sanitary conditions. But not before the parents
> will be thrown in prison, ridiculed, and forgotten. The end
> result is a broken family Ian.
> 
> Is any of this sinking in?

No because as always it's complete dross.

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

#94165

On Sunday, July 19, 2015 at 3:36:21 PM UTC-5, bream...@gmail.com wrote:
> Wrong, not all programmers need the patches as a lot of
> people couldn't care two hoots about 2.7.  

Well you should. Because apparently, you're incapable of
recognizing that Py2 and Py3 are existentially joined at the
hip! The world of language survival is more complex than your
selfish desires.

If you're unable to draw parallels between py2 and py3,
it's only because your focused is far too narrow. Negative
perception of py2 translates to negative perception of py3.

Python is the sum of all it's parts. Not merely the small
part (or rattle) that you happen to find amusing. And since
py3 is the smallest part of Python, and py2 is the largest,
you would be wise to consider the consequences of a failed,
or even perceived failure, of Py2.

If you change the diapers in Py3 nursery but refuse to change 
them in Py2 nursery, you might alleviate the your diaper rash, 
but other babies poop will always smell worse than your own!

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

#94181

On Sunday, July 19, 2015 at 10:27:58 PM UTC+1, Rick Johnson wrote:
> On Sunday, July 19, 2015 at 3:36:21 PM UTC-5, bream...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Wrong, not all programmers need the patches as a lot of
> > people couldn't care two hoots about 2.7.  
> 
> Well you should. Because apparently, you're incapable of
> recognizing that Py2 and Py3 are existentially joined at the
> hip! The world of language survival is more complex than your
> selfish desires.

Wrong again, 2.7 doesn't have all the goodies now poring into 3.x, so there is nothing in 2.7 to make me care.  Further as I'm a one man band I do what I like, so having canned it several years back, as have many core devs, it's staying canned.  "Selfish desires", very funny, I'll have to remember that one, you really are excelling yourself.

> 
> If you're unable to draw parallels between py2 and py3,
> it's only because your focused is far too narrow. Negative
> perception of py2 translates to negative perception of py3.

I have no negative perception of 2.7, it simply no longer interests me, to repeat in the same way that it no longer interests some core devs.

> 
> Python is the sum of all it's parts. Not merely the small
> part (or rattle) that you happen to find amusing. And since
> py3 is the smallest part of Python, and py2 is the largest,
> you would be wise to consider the consequences of a failed,
> or even perceived failure, of Py2.

2.7 is pretty much rock steady Eddie, so it is never going to be a perceived failure, let alone an actual failure.

> 
> If you change the diapers in Py3 nursery but refuse to change 
> them in Py2 nursery, you might alleviate the your diaper rash, 
> but other babies poop will always smell worse than your own!

I'll repeat, those who want 2.7 supported do the work, can it get any simpler?  You can support it, or are you still too busy working on your fork, RickedPython?  I'm not interested in it, I'm wouldn't touch it even if someone offered to pay me, end of story.

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

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

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

csiph-web