RetroSearch Browse

Fri Jan 20 03:49:29 CET 2012 · http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2012-January/115693.html

On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 9:54 AM, "Martin v. Löwis" <martin at v.loewis.de> wrote:
>> I can't help noticing that so far, worries about the workload came mostly from
>> people who don't actually bear that load (this is no accusation!), while those
>> that do are the proponents of the PEP...
>
> Ok, so let me add then that I'm worried about the additional work-load.
>
> I'm particularly worried about the coordination of vacation across the
> three people that work on a release. It might well not be possible to
> make any release for a period of two months, which, in a six-months
> release cycle with two alphas and a beta, might mean that we (the
> release people) would need to adjust our vacation plans with the release
> schedule, or else step down (unless you would release the "normal"
> feature releases as source-only releases).

I must admit that aspect had concerned me as well. Currently we use
the 18-24 month window for releases to slide things around to
accommodate the schedules of the RM, Martin (Windows binaries) and
Ned/Ronald (Mac OS X binaries).

Before we could realistically switch to more frequent releases,
something would need to change on the binary release side.

Regards,
Nick.

-- 
Nick Coghlan   |   ncoghlan at gmail.com   |   Brisbane, Australia

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2012-January/115693.html below:

[Python-Dev] PEP 407: New release cycle and introducing long-term support versions