Guido van Rossum writes: > I wonder, does that extend to new library modules? Is there also > resistance against the growth there? I don't think so -- if anything, > people are clamoring for more stuff to become standard (while at the There is still the issue of name clashes; introducing a new module in the top-level namespace introduces a potential conflict with someone's application-specific modules. This is a good reason for us to get the standard library packagized sooner rather than later (although this would have to be part of a "feature" release;). > Wait a minute! Now you're making it too complicated. Betas of bugfix > releases? That seems to defeat the purpose. What kind of Betas of the bugfix releases are important -- portability testing is fairly difficult to do when all we have are Windows and Linux/x86 boxes. There's definately a need for at least one beta. We probably don't need to lengthy, multi-phase alpha/alpha/beta/beta/candidate cycle we're using for feature releases now. > It's not too late, as I mentioned. We'll also do this for 2.1. Managing the bugfix releases would also be an excellent task for someone who's expecting to use the bugfix releases more than the feature releases -- the mentality has to be right for the task. I know I'm much more of a "features" person, and would have a hard time not crossing the line if it were up to me what went into a bugfix release. > BTW, See you at the conference! If we don't get snowed in! -Fred -- Fred L. Drake, Jr. <fdrake at acm.org> PythonLabs at Digital Creations
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