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

[phil hunt]

On Sun, 14 Apr 2002 01:02:17 -0400, Tim Peters <tim.one at comcast.net> wrote:
>> ...
>> 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.  Those things take work, and lots of
>it.  Note that James (to whom I was replying) was making the case for why
>commercial support is important to businesses -- nobody is going to buy a
>support contract that only guarantees not to add new features.

It is not new features that are the problem, it is new features that 
break existing code.

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.

>  Quite the
>contrary, business wants bug fixes for older releases, and they *also* want
>new features in old releases, especially in the libraries (like, e.g., SSL
>support for Windows, and support for hot new protocols

Indeed. And the best way to make sure that Python gets support for 
new protocols is to make sure the user base is big enough that 
someone is bound to write an open-source library to support any new 
protocol. And the best way to achieve that is to ensure backwards 
compatibility.

In summary:

   New features => good

   New features that break existing code => bad

-- 
<"><"><"> 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