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

[Tim Peters]

[Paul Rubin]
> 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.

> ...
> 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.  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 -- this is a
fast-moving field, if you haven't noticed <wink>).