Join GitHub today
GitHub is home to over 50 million developers working together to host and review code, manage projects, and build software together.
Sign up| PEP: 226 | |
| Title: Python 2.1 Release Schedule | |
| Version: $Revision$ | |
| Last-Modified: $Date$ | |
| Author: Jeremy Hylton <jeremy@alum.mit.edu> | |
| Status: Final | |
| Type: Informational | |
| Content-Type: text/x-rst | |
| Created: 16-Oct-2000 | |
| Python-Version: 2.1 | |
| Post-History: | |
| Abstract | |
| ======== | |
| This document describes the post Python 2.0 development and | |
| release schedule. According to this schedule, Python 2.1 will be | |
| released in April of 2001. The schedule primarily concerns | |
| itself with PEP-size items. Small bug fixes and changes will | |
| occur up until the first beta release. | |
| Release Schedule | |
| ================ | |
| Tentative future release dates | |
| [bugfix release dates go here] | |
| Past release dates: | |
| - 17-Apr-2001: 2.1 final release | |
| - 15-Apr-2001: 2.1 release candidate 2 | |
| - 13-Apr-2001: 2.1 release candidate 1 | |
| - 23-Mar-2001: Python 2.1 beta 2 release | |
| - 02-Mar-2001: First 2.1 beta release | |
| - 02-Feb-2001: Python 2.1 alpha 2 release | |
| - 22-Jan-2001: Python 2.1 alpha 1 release | |
| - 16-Oct-2000: Python 2.0 final release | |
| Open issues for Python 2.0 beta 2 | |
| ================================= | |
| Add a default unit testing framework to the standard library. | |
| Guidelines for making changes for Python 2.1 | |
| ============================================ | |
| The guidelines and schedule will be revised based on discussion in | |
| the python-dev@python.org mailing list. | |
| The PEP system was instituted late in the Python 2.0 development | |
| cycle and many changes did not follow the process described in PEP 1. | |
| The development process for 2.1, however, will follow the PEP | |
| process as documented. | |
| The first eight weeks following 2.0 final will be the design and | |
| review phase. By the end of this period, any PEP that is proposed | |
| for 2.1 should be ready for review. This means that the PEP is | |
| written and discussion has occurred on the python-dev@python.org | |
| and python-list@python.org mailing lists. | |
| The next six weeks will be spent reviewing the PEPs and | |
| implementing and testing the accepted PEPs. When this period | |
| stops, we will end consideration of any incomplete PEPs. Near the | |
| end of this period, there will be a feature freeze where any small | |
| features not worthy of a PEP will not be accepted. | |
| Before the final release, we will have six weeks of beta testing | |
| and a release candidate or two. | |
| General guidelines for submitting patches and making changes | |
| ============================================================ | |
| Use good sense when committing changes. You should know what we | |
| mean by good sense or we wouldn't have given you commit privileges | |
| <0.5 wink>. Some specific examples of good sense include: | |
| - Do whatever the dictator tells you. | |
| - Discuss any controversial changes on python-dev first. If you | |
| get a lot of +1 votes and no -1 votes, make the change. If you | |
| get a some -1 votes, think twice; consider asking Guido what he | |
| thinks. | |
| - If the change is to code you contributed, it probably makes | |
| sense for you to fix it. | |
| - If the change affects code someone else wrote, it probably makes | |
| sense to ask him or her first. | |
| - You can use the SourceForge (SF) Patch Manager to submit a patch | |
| and assign it to someone for review. | |
| Any significant new feature must be described in a PEP and | |
| approved before it is checked in. | |
| Any significant code addition, such as a new module or large | |
| patch, must include test cases for the regression test and | |
| documentation. A patch should not be checked in until the tests | |
| and documentation are ready. | |
| If you fix a bug, you should write a test case that would have | |
| caught the bug. | |
| If you commit a patch from the SF Patch Manager or fix a bug from | |
| the Jitterbug database, be sure to reference the patch/bug number | |
| in the CVS log message. Also be sure to change the status in the | |
| patch manager or bug database (if you have access to the bug | |
| database). | |
| It is not acceptable for any checked in code to cause the | |
| regression test to fail. If a checkin causes a failure, it must | |
| be fixed within 24 hours or it will be backed out. | |
| All contributed C code must be ANSI C. If possible check it with | |
| two different compilers, e.g. gcc and MSVC. | |
| All contributed Python code must follow Guido's Python style | |
| guide. http://www.python.org/doc/essays/styleguide.html | |
| It is understood that any code contributed will be released under | |
| an Open Source license. Do not contribute code if it can't be | |
| released this way. | |
| .. | |
| Local Variables: | |
| mode: indented-text | |
| indent-tabs-mode: nil | |
| End: |