Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?

[Mark Lawrence]

On 20/07/2015 03:36, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 06:21 am, breamoreboy at gmail.com wrote:
>
>> All in all though I have to admit that overall it's a really onerous task.
>>   Once you've produced the patch you have to go to all the trouble of
>> logging on to the issue tracker, finding the appropriate issue and
>> uploading the patch.  You may even be inclined to make a comment.  In this
>> case this entire process could take as much as two whole minutes.
>
> It's very interesting that you ignore the two hardest parts of the process:
>
> (1) Producing the patch in the first place.
>
> (2) Convincing those with appropriate commit rights to accept the patch.
>
>

I didn't actually intend to ignore anything, only the whole context has 
been altered as you've snipped the previous paragraph that led into the 
above.

I don't know about the hardest part of the process, but I believe that 
the actual commit part is a PITA regardless of the size of the patch 
involved.  The good news on that front is that the core workflow project 
has kick started again.  The bad news is I haven't got the faintest idea 
what the timescale is, a year, two, I've simply no idea?

One thing I do know is that it has to be made to work, as I doubt that 
there's a single member of the community who can be happy with the 
current workflow.  Still in a way that is a good sign as it shows that 
currently Python is a victim of its own success.

Once the core workflow project has succeeded, and I'll repeat that it 
has to, then Python will definitely achieve what Pinky and the Brain 
failed to do :)

-- 
My fellow Pythonistas, ask not what our language can do for you, ask
what you can do for our language.

Mark Lawrence