Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?

References	(2 earlier) <moeurf$a6f$1@ger.gmane.org> <mailman.695.1437273248.3674.python-list@python.org> <55ab2b73$0$1664$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> <mailman.754.1437355286.3674.python-list@python.org> <55ac6571$0$1660$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com>
From	Devin Jeanpierre <jeanpierreda@gmail.com>
Date	2015-07-19 20:41 -0700
Subject	Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?
Newsgroups	comp.lang.python
Message-ID	<mailman.759.1437364183.3674.python-list@python.org> (permalink)

Show all headers | View raw

On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 8:05 PM, Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 11:20 am, Devin Jeanpierre wrote:
>> I was most frustrated by the first case -- the patch was (informally)
>> rejected in favor of the "right" fix, and the "right" fix was
>> (informally) rejected because it changed behavior, leaving me only
>> with the option of absurd workarounds of a bug in Python, or moving to
>> python 3.
>
> In the first case, 17094, your comments weren't added until TWO YEARS after
> the issue was closed. It's quite possible that nobody has even noticed
> them. In the second case, the issue is still open. So I don't understand
> your description above: there's no sign that the patch in 17094 was
> rejected, the patch had bugs and it was fixed and applied to 3.4. It wasn't
> applied to 2.7 for the reasons explained in the tracker: it could break
> code that is currently working.
>
> For the second issue, it has neither been applied nor rejected.

I meant search your #python-dev IRC logs, where this was discussed.

As far as whether people notice patches after an issue is closed,
Terry Reedy answered "yes" earlier in the thread. If the answer is
actually "no", then we should fix how bugs are handled post-closure,
in case e.g. someone posts a followup patch that fixes a remaining
case, and so on.

>> you
>> shouldn't need quotes or context thrown at you. The rhetoric almost
>> always shies _just_ short of ceasing bugfixes (until 2020, when that
>> abruptly becomes a cracking good idea). e.g. in "2.7 is here until
>> 2020, please don't call it a waste".
>
> Right. So you take an extended ten year maintenance period for Python 2.7 as
> evidence that the core devs are *hostile* to maintaining 2.7? That makes no
> sense to me.

That isn't what I said at all.

> If you want to say that *some individuals* who happen to have commit rights
> are hostile to Python 2.7, I can't really argue with that. Individuals can
> have all sorts of ideas and opinions. But the core devs as a group are very
> supportive of Python 2.7, even going to the effort of back-porting
> performance improvements.

I do want to say that. It doesn't help that those same individuals are
the only core devs I have interacted with while trying to patch 2.7.

-- Devin

Thread

Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Devin Jeanpierre <jeanpierreda@gmail.com> - 2015-07-18 19:33 -0700
  Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2015-07-18 19:49 -0700
  Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2015-07-18 20:52 -0700
    Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2015-07-18 21:18 -0700
    Devanagari int literals [was Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2015-07-19 14:45 +1000
      Re: Devanagari int literals [was Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-07-19 15:06 +1000
        Re: Devanagari int literals [was Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2015-07-19 10:16 +0300
          Re: Devanagari int literals [was Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2015-07-19 00:32 -0700
            Re: Devanagari int literals [was Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2015-07-19 10:44 +0300
            Re: Devanagari int literals [was Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2015-07-19 19:13 -0400
              Re: Devanagari int literals [was Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2015-07-19 19:02 -0700
      Re: Devanagari int literals [was Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Anuradha Laxminarayan <lanuradha@gmail.com> - 2015-07-18 23:25 -0700
      Re: Devanagari int literals [was Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2015-07-19 04:26 -0400
      Re: Devanagari int literals [was Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Tim Chase <python.list@tim.thechases.com> - 2015-07-19 07:56 -0500
      Re: Devanagari int literals [was Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-07-20 04:07 +1000
      Re: Devanagari int literals [was Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Tim Chase <python.list@tim.thechases.com> - 2015-07-19 14:55 -0500
      Re: Devanagari int literals [was Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-07-20 07:16 +1000
        Re: Devanagari int literals [was Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] wxjmfauth@gmail.com - 2015-07-20 00:43 -0700
      Re: Devanagari int literals [was Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] MRAB <python@mrabarnett.plus.com> - 2015-07-19 23:13 +0100
      Re: Devanagari int literals [was Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2015-07-20 20:30 -0700
        Re: Devanagari int literals [was Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-07-21 13:43 +1000
          Re: Devanagari int literals [was Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2015-07-20 23:11 -0700
        Re: Devanagari int literals [was Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Laura Creighton <lac@openend.se> - 2015-07-21 10:10 +0200
          Re: Devanagari int literals [was Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2015-07-21 12:10 +0300
            Re: Devanagari int literals [was Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-07-21 19:18 +1000
              Re: Devanagari int literals [was Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2015-07-21 13:13 +0300
            Re: Devanagari int literals [was Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-07-21 11:34 +0100
            Re: Devanagari int literals [was Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-07-21 20:39 +1000
              Re: Devanagari int literals [was Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2015-07-21 13:54 +0300
                Re: Devanagari int literals [was Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2015-08-09 00:27 +0300
                Re: OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2015-08-09 09:29 -0700
              Re:  Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2015-07-22 06:34 -0700
                OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2015-07-23 02:58 +1000
                Re: OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Laura Creighton <lac@openend.se> - 2015-07-22 19:17 +0200
                Re: OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2015-07-22 10:49 -0700
                Re: OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Laura Creighton <lac@openend.se> - 2015-07-22 20:14 +0200
                Re: OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-07-22 21:59 +0100
                Re: OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2015-07-23 03:21 +1000
                Re: OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-07-22 21:44 -0400
                Re: OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-07-23 12:00 +1000
                Re: OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-07-22 10:48 -0700
                Re: OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2015-07-22 10:51 -0700
                Re: OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-07-23 15:14 +1000
                Re: OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2015-07-22 11:09 -0700
                Re: OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-07-23 15:41 +1000
                Re: OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2015-07-23 23:59 +0300
                Re: OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-07-24 07:03 +1000
                Re: OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2015-07-24 00:29 +0300
                Re: OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-07-23 22:50 +0100
                Re: OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Laura Creighton <lac@openend.se> - 2015-07-23 23:52 +0200
                Re: OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2015-07-24 00:59 +0300
                Re: OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-07-24 08:02 +1000
                Re: OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-07-24 08:00 +1000
                Re: OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] MRAB <python@mrabarnett.plus.com> - 2015-07-23 23:01 +0100
                Re: OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Laura Creighton <lac@openend.se> - 2015-07-24 00:19 +0200
                Re: OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-07-23 23:56 +0100
                Re: OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2015-07-24 00:07 +0000
                Re: OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2015-07-23 18:40 -0700
                Re: OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-07-23 19:03 -0700
                Re: OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2015-07-23 20:16 -0700
                Re: OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2015-07-24 14:13 +0000
                Re: OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-07-24 08:45 -0700
                Re: OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-07-24 16:58 +0100
                Re: OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2015-07-23 22:15 -0700
                Re: OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security   2.7 bugs be fixed?] Gregory Ewing <greg.ewing@canterbury.ac.nz> - 2015-07-23 18:57 +1200
                Re: OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2015-07-23 02:12 -0700
                Re: OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2015-07-23 05:52 -0700
                Re: OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2015-07-23 11:24 +0300
        Re: Devanagari int literals [was Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-07-21 18:57 +1000
    Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2015-07-19 02:44 -0400
    Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2015-07-19 05:11 -0400
      Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2015-07-19 07:30 -0700
    Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-07-19 15:00 +0100
  Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2015-07-19 14:45 +1000
    Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Devin Jeanpierre <jeanpierreda@gmail.com> - 2015-07-19 18:20 -0700
      Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2015-07-20 13:05 +1000
        Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Devin Jeanpierre <jeanpierreda@gmail.com> - 2015-07-19 20:41 -0700
    Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-07-20 02:46 +0100
      Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2015-07-19 19:16 -0700
        Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-07-20 12:59 +1000
        Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-07-20 11:59 +0100
        Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2015-07-20 20:04 -0700
          Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2015-07-20 20:15 -0700
            Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-07-21 13:33 +1000
            Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2015-07-21 00:45 -0400
          Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? breamoreboy@gmail.com - 2015-07-21 14:22 -0700
            Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2015-07-21 19:07 -0700
              Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2015-07-22 02:51 -0400
                Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2015-07-22 16:37 -0700
    Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2015-07-20 02:25 -0400
    Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? dieter <dieter@handshake.de> - 2015-07-20 08:58 +0200
    Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Devin Jeanpierre <jeanpierreda@gmail.com> - 2015-07-20 00:13 -0700

csiph-web