On 6/3/2012 7:22 AM, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote: > On 01.06.2012 19:33, Brett Cannon wrote: >> Are these dead in the water or are we going to try to change our >> release cycle? I'm just asking since 3.3 final is due out in about 3 >> months and deciding on this along with shifting things if we do make >> a change could end up taking that long and I suspect if we don't do >> this for 3.3 we are probably never going to do it for Python 3 series >> as a whole. > > I'm -1 on both PEPs. I pretty much agree. There is certainly no consensus and the possible benefit is not obviously substantially more than the cost. > For PEP 407, I fail to see what problem it solves. The PEP is short on > rationale, so let me guess what the motivation for the PEP is: ... > While I well recall the feeling of getting changes "out", the real > concerns only exist for the very first contribution: ... > * Now that the patch is uploaded, can somebody *please* review it? > How hard can it be to look over 20 lines of code? Example http://bugs.python.org/issue13598 OP submitted revised patch in response to review 4 months ago > As for us not getting enough contributions: can we please worry > about that when we have all patches processed that already have > been contributed? I suspect that having too many unattended patches sitting on the tracker discourages one from writing and submitting more. I also suspect, for instance, that applying some of Roger Serwy's Idle patches has encouraged him to write more. -- Terry Jan Reedy
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