RetroSearch Browse

Fri Apr 1 18:00:38 CEST 2011 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2011-April/110362.html

On 4/1/2011 9:45 AM, Michael Foord wrote:

>> See thread starting at
>> http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2010-August/103263.html
> As far as I can tell there was no clear decision there either. :-)

I read it as deciding no doc fixes.

> (Other than no *need* to bother, which doesn't answer the question of
> what if developers *want* to fix errors in the docs - and I'm in favour
> of *permitting* but not requiring it.)

I see three reasons not to backport doc fixes:

1. we have too few people and too little time to do all we can/should 
with current releases.

2. anyone wanting up-to-date 2.6 docs should really consult 2.7 docs 
which include 2.6, with differences carefully noted. It was suggested in 
the thread that older docs, such as 2.6, say so. The point we should 
advertise is that the 'x.y' docs are really the cumulative Python x 
docs. We do extra work to make them be that.

(If nothing else, restarting the docs fresh will eventually be a reason 
for a Python4 release.)

3. sporadic updates to 2.6 docs will not benefits windows users or 
anyone else with a local copy at all; they will only deceptively benefit 
site visitors, which will still miss out on everything not backported.

-- 
Terry Jan Reedy

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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2011-April/110362.html below:

building Python from source on multiarch Debian/Ubuntu