On 19. 11. 21 22:15, Mike Miller wrote:
This is the point where the pricey support contract comes in. Would
give options to those who need it and provide some revenue.
Not really; for a pricey support contract would need to freeze things
for even longer -- *and* make it an actual contract :)
Changing working code just to make it continue to work with a newer
Python version is boring. Companies might pay money to not have to do
that. Or they might pay their employees to do the work. Either way it's
money that could be spent on better things. (And hopefully, in some
cases those things will be investing into Python and its ecosystem.)
But it's similar with volunteer authors and maintainers of various tools
and libraries, who "pay" with their time that could be spent building
something useful (or something fun). I believe that each time we force
them to do pointless updates in their code, we sap some joy and
enthusiasm from the ecosystem.
Of course, we need to balance that with the joy and enthusiasm (and yes,
corporate money) that core devs pour into improving Python itself. But
it's the users that we're making Python for.
Otherwise, the "there's no such thing as a free lunch," factor takes
precedence.
That cuts both ways: deleting old ugly code is enjoyable, but it isn't
free ;)
Full disclosure: I do work for Red Hat, which makes money on pricey
support contracts. But Victor Stinner also works here.
This thread was motivated by watching rebuilds of Fedora packages with
Python 3.11 (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2016048), and
asking myself if all the work we're expecting people to do is worth it.
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/
Message archived at
https://mail.python.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/DTORHHPWTK7DL35XTWOGD2SJE3EH5DBI/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/