On 07/05/2016 10:44 AM, Barry Warsaw wrote: > On Jul 04, 2016, at 10:31 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote: >> While we liked the "consistent calendar cadence that is some multiple >> of 6 months" idea, several of us thought 12 months was way too short >> as it makes for too many entries in third party support matrices. > > 18 months for a major release cadence still seems right to me. Downstreams > and third-parties often have to go through *a lot* of work to ensure > compatibility, and try as we might, every Python release breaks *something*. > Major version releases trigger a huge cascade of other work for lots of other > people, and I don't think shortening that would be for the overall community > good. It just feels like we'd always be playing catch up. +1 from me as well. Rapid major releases are just a huge headache. The nice thing about a .6 or .7 minor release is that we get closer to no bugs with each one. -- ~Ethan~
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