| |||||||||||
MIX - Novell's de Icaza criticizes Microsoft patent deal (LinuxWorld)MIX - Novell's de Icaza criticizes Microsoft patent deal (LinuxWorld)Posted Mar 11, 2008 4:34 UTC (Tue) by beoba (guest, #16942)In reply to: MIX - Novell's de Icaza criticizes Microsoft patent deal (LinuxWorld) by tialaramex Parent article: MIX - Novell's de Icaza criticizes Microsoft patent deal (LinuxWorld)
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.
(Log in to post comments)
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).
|
|||||||||||