Eliminating upgrade risk

[James Logajan]

Tim Peters wrote:
> 
> [James C. Ahlstrom]
> > ...
> > The problem is that the new Python features, as wonderful as they are,
> > are chosen for Computer Science Purity, not day-to-working-day
> > importance to someone actually trying to write a widely used bullet
> > proof program.
> 
> As my physicists friend like to say, "that's not even wrong".  Write a PEP.

Are you seriously suggesting he write a PEP to inhibit the other PEPs? Or
are you demanding something else?

> while-compsci-purists-denounce-python-for-its-pragmatism-ly y'rs  - tim

I've checked the Google archives, and I've come to the conclusion that you
are of the position that anyone who doesn't constantly upgrade should not be
supported, in the sense that if they report bugs, write books about Python,
or ask for porting assistance, their questions will all be answered with
"Upgrade first, then we'll talk". Is that basically correct?