On Jun 09, 2010, at 01:15 AM, Fred Drake wrote: >On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 12:30 AM, Senthil Kumaran <orsenthil at gmail.com> wrote: >> it would still be a good idea to >> introduce some of them in minor releases in 2.7. I know, this >> deviating from the process, but it could be an option considering that >> 2.7 is the last of 2.x release. > >I disagree. > >If there are going to be features going into *any* post 2.7.0 version, >there's no reason not to increment the revision number to 2.8, > >Since there's also a well-advertised decision that 2.7 will be the >last 2.x, such a 2.8 isn't planned. But there's no reason to violate >the no-features-in-bugfix-releases policy. We've seen violations >cause trouble and confusion, but we've not seen it be successful. > >The policy wasn't arbitrary; let's stick to it. I completely agree with Fred. New features in point releases will cause many more headaches than opening up a 2.8, which I still hope we don't do. I'd rather see all that pent up energy focussed on doing whatever we can to help people transition to Python 3. -Barry -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 836 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20100609/27bde94d/attachment.pgp>
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