>>>>> "FLD" == Fred L Drake, <fdrake@acm.org> writes: FLD> Jeremy Hylton writes: >> We consider both a set of functional goals and a release >> schedule. We don't want to make these decisions in isolation. >> If there are N FLD> That's right. But we definately determine the release schedule FLD> without any regard for what else is on our schedule, and we FLD> don't make changes to the schedule based on what gets added to FLD> our schedule before we're done. FLD> Or that's been my perception at least. We chose a release schedule a few weeks or months after the previous release, and it always slides. So I think we do adjust the schedule to some extent. Did we add an extra alpha or beta release of the type-class unification? On the other hand, we tend to resist too much slippage after the schedule has been set. There was definitely a lot of pressure to get the __future__ stuff for nested_scopes into 2.1 without causing the schedule to be delayed :-O. Jeremy
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4