RetroSearch Browse

Thu Jun 10 21:25:33 CEST 2010 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2010-June/100566.html

On 6/10/2010 2:48 AM, Senthil Kumaran wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 6:40 AM, Alexandre Vassalotti
> <alexandre at peadrop.com>  wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 1:23 PM, "Martin v. Löwis"<martin at v.loewis.de>  wrote:
>>> Closing the backport requests is fine. For the feature requests, I'd only
>>> close them *after* the 2.7 release (after determining that they won't apply
>>> to 3.x, of course).
>>>
>>> There aren't that many backport requests, anyway, are there?
>>>
>>
>> There is only a few requests (about five)
>
> I get your point. It is the 'back-ports' that you have tagged.

Right, things already in 3.x.

 > These
> were designed for 3.x and implemented in 3.x in the first place.
> I was concerned that there will be policy drawn or a practice that
> will close any/every existing Feature Request in Python 2.7.
> There are some cases (in stdlib) which can debated on the lines of
> feature request vs bug-fix and those will get hurt in the process.

I have started going through old open issues tagged with 2.5. Many are 
unclassified. Those that are feature requests that are *plausible* for 
3.2 I am marking as such and retagging for 3.2, *not* closing. (I am 
also marking bug reports as such and asking the OP to test in 2.6/7 and 
maybe 3.1 if I cannot easily do so.)

Ideally, all core/stdlib feature requests should be classified as such 
and tagged for 3.2 or even 3.3) only.

Terry Jan Reedy

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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2010-June/100566.html below:

[Python-Dev] Future of 2.x.