[Python-Dev] whither PEP 407 and 413 (release cycle PEPs)? (original) (raw)

Nick Coghlan ncoghlan at gmail.com
Mon Jun 4 05:51:15 CEST 2012

On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 7:11 AM, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan at gmail.com> wrote:

On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 7:02 AM, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan at gmail.com> wrote:

I think marking both as Rejected would be an accurate reflection of python-dev's collective opinion. Slight correction: I think it would accurately reflect python-dev's divided opinion, using the principle of "Status quo wins a stalemate". The costs for either scheme are high, the benefits are not proven, thus the default is to stick with the status quo. Releasing alphas early, OTOH, doesn't require any real changes to our development process at all, aside from imposing a bit more discipline on trunk development in the first 12 months of the release cycle (I'm inclined to place that particular detail on the "benefit" side of the ledger, rather than the "cost" side). The total number of releases from the release managers and installer builders shouldn't increase much, if at all - I'd suggest we just stick with Georg's practice of 4 alpha releases, and merely space them out over the course of the release cycle rather than clustered together at the end. If Larry doesn't want to try this for 3.4, then I'll most likely volunteer as 3.5 RM and try it out then.

After an off-list discussion with Larry, I'm now planning to expand on this concept in PEP form (superceding 413). There's actually a little bit more to it than just releasing the alphas early - it's about harnessing the power of external deadlines to help counter innate tendencies towards procrastination :)

Cheers, Nick.

-- Nick Coghlan   |   ncoghlan at gmail.com   |   Brisbane, Australia

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list