Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.python > #94080
| From | Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> |
|---|---|
| Subject | Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? |
| Date | 2015-07-18 21:34 -0400 |
| References | <moenuj$f11$1@ger.gmane.org> <moeqtn$mh0$1@ger.gmane.org> |
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.python |
| Message-ID | <mailman.693.1437269689.3674.python-list@python.org> (permalink) |
On 7/18/2015 8:27 PM, Mark Lawrence wrote: > On 19/07/2015 00:36, Terry Reedy wrote: >> I asked the following as an off-topic aside in a reply on another >> thread. I got one response which presented a point I had not considered. >> I would like more viewpoints from 2.7 users. >> >> Background: each x.y.0 release normally gets up to 2 years of bugfixes, >> until x.(y+1).0 is released. For 2.7, released summer 2010, the bugfix >> period was initially extended to 5 years, ending about now. At the >> spring pycon last year, the period was extended to 10 years, with an >> emphasis on security and build fixed. My general question is what other >> fixes should be made? Some specific forms of this question are the >> following. >> >> If the vast majority of Python programmers are focused on 2.7, why are >> volunteers to help fix 2.7 bugs so scarce? >> >> Does they all consider it perfect (or sufficient) as is? >> >> Should the core developers who do not personally use 2.7 stop >> backporting, because no one cares if they do? >> > > Programmers don't much like doing maintainance work when they're paid to > do it, so why would they volunteer to do it? Right. So I am asking: if a 3.x user volunteers a 3.x patch and a 3.x core developer reviews and edits the patch until it is ready to commit, why should either of them volunteer to do a 2.7 backport that they will not use? I am suggesting that if there are 10x as many 2.7only programmers as 3.xonly programmers, and none of the 2.7 programmers is willing to do the backport *of an already accepted patch*, then maybe it should not be done at all. > Then even if you do the > work to fix *ANY* bug there is no guarantee that it gets committed. I am discussing the situation where there *is* a near guarantee (if the backport works and does not break anything and has not been so heavily revised as to require a separate review). -- Terry Jan Reedy
Back to comp.lang.python | Previous | Next — Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2015-07-18 21:34 -0400
Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-07-18 20:45 -0700
Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2015-07-18 21:04 -0700
Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-07-19 14:52 +0100
csiph-web