RetroSearch Browse

Fri Jul 14 07:51:00 CEST 2006 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2006-July/067406.html

On Friday 14 July 2006 06:05, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> This really is an excellent point and makes me think that we may
> want to consider elaborating on the Python release cycle to include
> a gamma phase or a longer release candidate cycle.  OT1H I think
> there will always be people or projects that won't try anything
> until the gold release, and that if we've broken anything in their
> code we simply won't know it until after that, no matter how
> diligent we are.  OTOH, a more formal gamma phase would allow us to
> say "absolutely no changes are allowed now unless it's to fix
> backward compatibility".  No more sneaking in new sys functions or
> types module constants <wink> during the gamma phase.

    alpha 1: April 5, 2006 [completed]
    alpha 2: April 27, 2006 [completed]
    beta 1:  June 20, 2006 [completed]
    beta 2:  July 11, 2006 [completed]
    rc 1:    August 1, 2006 [planned]
    final:   August 8, 2006 [planned]

Four months would seem to me to be quite long enough as a release 
cycle. Extending it means far more work for everyone - either we have 
special checkin rules for the trunk for a longer period of time 
(requiring extra monitoring by people like myself and Neal), or we 
branch earlier, requiring double commits to the trunk and the branch 
for bugfixes. 

I also strongly doubt that making a longer "release candidate" cycle 
would lead to any significant additional testing by end-users.

Anthony
-- 
Anthony Baxter     <anthony at interlink.com.au>
It's never too late to have a happy childhood.

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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2006-July/067406.html below:

[Python-Dev] Community buildbots (was Re: User's complaints)