100% of votes cast were for "don't slip", so we won't slip. Retreat! Full steam behind! //arry/ On 12/20/2016 02:25 AM, Matthias Klose wrote: > On 19.12.2016 06:26, Larry Hastings wrote: >> Python 3.6.0 final just slipped by two weeks. I scheduled 3.5.3 and >> 3.4.6 to ship about a month after 3.6.0 did, to "let the dust settle" >> around the release. I expect a flood of adoption of 3.6, and people >> switching will find bugs, and maybe those bugs are in 3.5 or 3.4. So >> it just seemed sensible. 3.6 just slipped by two weeks. So now >> there's less than two weeks between 3.6.0 final shipping and tagging >> the release canddiates for 3.5.3 and 3.4.6. This isn't as much time >> as I'd like. If I had total freedom to do as I liked, I'd slip my >> releases by two weeks to match 3.6. But there might be people >> planning around 3.5.3 and 3.4.6--like Guido was waiting for 3.5.3 for >> something iirc. So, if you have an opinion, please vote for one of >> these three options: * Don't slip 3.5.3. and 3.4.6. * Slip 3.5.3 and >> 3.4.6 by two weeks to match 3.6.0. * Slip 3.5.3 and 3.4.6 by a whole >> month, to give 3.6.0 the ability to slip again without us having to >> change the release. > I would appreciate a 3.5.3 release which doesn't slip, or which only > slips by a week, to be available before the Debian freeze. Neither > Debian nor Ubuntu ship the 3.4 branch anymore, so for 3.4 I'm fine > with any solution. Matthias -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20161222/70f834be/attachment.html>
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