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

[Paul Rubin]

Tim Peters <tim.one at comcast.net> writes:
> > A lot of stuff gets done because it needs to get done, rather than
> > scratch an itch.
> 
> Do you have a concrete example?  I can't think of one.  In a world of
> volunteers, "need" is in the judgment of each volunteer, and counts as
> scratching their own itches to me.  In contrast, Guido said 1.5.2 "needed" a
> bugfix release about 6 months after it was released, and nobody volunteered,
> and 1.5.2 never got a bugfix release.  Volunteers can't be forced to do
> anything; they do what they want to do, and for people playing the game
> that's great for everyone.

I was thinking about various parts of the GNU project, not
specifically about Python.  For example, the whole GNOME system was
written because the FSF found the Trolltech Qt license unsatisfactory
(the Qt license later was fixed).  Or the Gutenberg project--people
scanning and manually correcting millions of pages of public domain
texts that they can easily get in printed form in bookstores, but they
feel the texts should be downloadable and somebody needs to do it, so
they do.

> > In that particular debate, a lot of people were asking for certain new
> > features to be LEFT OUT of Python. I don't understand how someone can
> > volunteer to contribute work, time, or money toward leaving something
> > out.
> 
> That was barely mentioned in the "crushing amount of debate over 'stability'
> [that] has gone by on Python-Dev the last week", so I don't know what "that
> particular debate" means to you, but it surely doesn't refer to anything in
> the paragraph you were responding to.  The debate on Python-Dev has about
> backward compatibility, and especially about producing bugfix releases for
> older releases for a much longer time. 

I was thinking of the PEP 285 discussion and the complaints about
too-frequent releases messing up compatibility because of new stuff
constantly being added--the remedy being to not add so much stuff.  If
you were referring to a different debate, I misunderstood.