On Sep 23, 2010, at 09:06 AM, Benjamin Peterson wrote: >Are any of our docs subject to release schedules? I guess what I'm concerned about is this scenario: You're a developer who has the source code to Python 3.1. You read the in-tree docs to get a sense of how our development process works. Now, you're a diligent and eager new contributor so you follow those instructions to the letter. Unfortunately, Python 3.5 is the current version and we've changed key parts of the process. There's no possible way that your 3.1 in-tree docs can be updated to reflect the new process. Okay, we can tell you to get the Python 3.5 code, or probably better yet, the Python 3.6 in-development trunk, but now we've got another dilemma. If we change the process in 3.6, there will be pressure to update the docs in 3.5 and previous versions that are still officially maintained. And what about security-only versions of Python? Our development processes are *primarily* independent of Python version, so I don't think they should be tied to our source tree, and our CPython source tree at that. I suspect the version-dependent instructions will be minimal and can be handled by the rare footnotes or whatever. IMHO of course, -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/20100923/c2cf5661/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