On 7/14/06, Anthony Baxter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Friday 14 July 2006 16:39, Neal Norwitz wrote: > > Remember I also tried to push for more features to go in early? > > That would have given more time for external testing. Still > > features are coming in. Python developers weren't happy about > > having to get things in earlier. I don't see a practical way to > > implement what you propose (see Anthony's comments). > > Following up on this point: > Given the number of "just-this-one-more-thing-please" we've _already_ > had since the b1 feature freeze, do you really except that 90 days of > feature freeze is feasible? And if there's not going to be a feature > freeze, there's hardly any point to people doing testing until there > _is_ a feature freeze, is there? Oh, great, my code works with 2.5b1. > Oops. 2.5b9 added a new feature that broke my code, but I didn't test > with that.
Maybe the basic question is right, but the emphasis needs to be changed. If we had a rule that said the final release was 90 days after the last submission that wasn't to fix a regression, we'd ask "Is this feature important enough to warrant delaying the release until three months from now?" I'm not sure what I think, but it doesn't seem like an implausible policy. Jeremy > > Anthony > -- > Anthony Baxter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > It's never too late to have a happy childhood. > _______________________________________________ > Python-Dev mailing list > Python-Dev@python.org > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev > Unsubscribe: > http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/jeremy%40alum.mit.edu > _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
