Do you QA your Python? Was: 2.1 vs. 2.2

[phil hunt]

On Mon, 15 Apr 2002 09:01:56 -0400, Steve Holden <sholden at holdenweb.com> wrote:
>"phil hunt" <philh at comuno.freeserve.co.uk> wrote ...
>> On Sun, 14 Apr 2002 01:02:17 -0400, Tim Peters <tim.one at comcast.net>
>wrote:
>> >> ...
>[ talk on leaving things out left out :-)]
>>
>> It is not new features that are the problem, it is new features that
>> break existing code.
>>
>And these would be ... ?

PEP 285, for example.

>> IMO until Python developers adopt a policy of being very reluctant
>> to do this, many IT managers will be wary of using it in anything
>> other thsan toy projects, and Python's user base will not grow as
>> quickly as (IMO) it should.
>>
>And your evidence that they have not yet adopted such a policy is ... ?

Gut feeling.

>> In summary:
>>
>>    New features => good
>>
>>    New features that break existing code => bad
>>
>While this last assertion is uncontentious (though hardly surprising or
>original), you have totally failed to provide any real evidence of code
>breakage due to the recent changes in the language. On the other hand,
>Andrew Kuchling recently reported on this list (in message
><slrnabba3h.h8h.akuchlin at crystal.mems-exchange.org>) that it took *minimal
>effort* to port over 170,000 lines of Python code to 2.2.

IOW, some code did break? And how much wore will break when people 
try to serialize code on a post-PEP285 python and read it on a 
pre-PEP285?

-- 
<"><"><"> Philip Hunt <philh at comuno.freeserve.co.uk> <"><"><">
"I would guess that he really believes whatever is politically 
advantageous for him to believe." 
                        -- Alison Brooks, referring to Michael
                              Portillo, on soc.history.what-if