Following system colour scheme Selected dark colour scheme Selected light colour scheme

Python Enhancement Proposals

PEP 226 – Python 2.1 Release Schedule

Jeremy Hylton <jeremy at>

Table of Contents


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 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 and 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.

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.


Last modified: 2023-09-09 17:39:29 GMT