Notes on 2.2's changes

[Lumberjack]

"A.M. Kuchling" <akuchlin at crystal.mems-exchange.org> wrote:
> This means that from my point of view Python *has* been managed for
> stability, and the job has been done reasonably well.  (I'd be
> interested in seeing a similar list from people who find there's too
> much change.  It would be useful for figuring out what sorts of
> changes cause the most problems.)

Sometimes a single bug can take several man days to fix or cause financial 
hardship. It is impossible to tell from your list how much _time_ (and 
money) was consumed in locating and fixing those problems. Basically, you 
haven't provided data on the more important metric. And it isn't clear why 
you felt it was necessary to be compatible with 2.2. Wouldn't it have been 
simpler to just say "run these on version 2.0.x of Python"? The alleged 
underlying philosophy seems to be that you can pick whatever version 
that suits you and stick with it; you are under no compunction to track 
changes to Python. So why track it if there is no compunction? I'd like to 
see you address that.

P.S. Frankly I'm surprised that the list was as long as it was.