| |||||||||||
MIX - Novell's de Icaza criticizes Microsoft patent deal (LinuxWorld)MIX - Novell's de Icaza criticizes Microsoft patent deal (LinuxWorld)Posted Mar 10, 2008 18:25 UTC (Mon) by tialaramex (subscriber, #21167)In reply to: MIX - Novell's de Icaza criticizes Microsoft patent deal (LinuxWorld) by beoba Parent article: MIX - Novell's de Icaza criticizes Microsoft patent deal (LinuxWorld)
Python 2.5.2 was released just a couple of weeks ago. But Python aspires to the (completely unrealistic) ideal that such releases should be both backward and forward compatible. The result is that software can still break (thanks to the universe's unlimited capability to build bigger idiots no amount of rules about backward and forward compatibility can prevent new releases from breaking old software) but Python refuses to import important fixes like this to the stable tree because someone might try to run a (fixed) program against 2.5.1 and that wouldn't work. In reality some people are using Python to develop major applications. Those people, including the OLPC project are in the unfortunate situation of having to fork Python 2.5 and maintain their own version with this fix in it. So even the compatibility goal is sabotaged. And it's all very well to say "Go back in time" but this specific bug was reported eighteen months ago - and the problem really dates back to Python's implementation of signal handling years ago, turning an asynchronous signal into something you have to poll regularly. It's fine in principle to have a major release cycle which takes years, but you still need to achieve timely resolution of bugs. Python's current "no compromise" approach doesn't do that.
(Log in to post comments)
MIX - Novell's de Icaza criticizes Microsoft patent deal (LinuxWorld) Posted Mar 11, 2008 4:34 UTC (Tue) by beoba (guest, #16942) [Link] Python 3 is not planned to be forward compatible, hence the change in major version number. 2.5.2 is a bugfix release within the 2.5 branch. The aforementioned problem is being solved by adding a new function call to the standard library, which inherently makes it a target for 2.6. It sounds like you're complaining without any intent of seeking a resolution to your complaint. At this point, there isn't really anything else to discuss. Patches welcome.
Python Posted Mar 11, 2008 10:44 UTC (Tue) by tialaramex (subscriber, #21167) [Link] Of course it's possible to resolve this complaint, but only by taking it seriously. Here's a thought, why don't you present an example of something that would actually have broken if Python had taken this fix in some form for 2.5.2 ? No ? The maintainers working on this bug didn't either. Rather than offer an actual rationale you've just recited policy, "inherently makes it a target for 2.6" isn't a statement about some universal and "inherent" truth but of the maintainer's policy. So there's your patch, find the "policy" document that says fixes like this can't go into a bugfix release, and change it to say "We aim to be pragmatic about taking fixes early." Or else take the Twisp and Catsby route, and just add a policy statement that Python is not for use in production software. Either is an adequate response to my complaint (well originally it wasn't a complaint, just a statement that Python and Mono's C# remain inadequate for serious application development in 2008).
|
|||||||||||