I'm sure all the people that have been working on this for years would be interested in your small tweak, that they didn't think of, and would happily accept the PR!
Maybe in all those years they could have thought of that.
https://discuss.python.org/t/reverting-the-incremental-gc-in...
a) do work to reduce issues as they come up b) appease the vocal complaints
A takes work, guts, and risk. Option b was chosen with the GC work basically saddled with so much process it’s never going to change. Python has a very storied history of being very committee driven design so the committee did the committee thing.
Tweaking the GC while the system was functionally broken is the worst time to do it. Correct incident response is revert first, figure out how to fix it later.
On what planet is the currently released version of any software "not a live system?"
You are responsible for that, not them. And if Python 3.13 is fine for you and you report a performance regression for 3.14, you can still stay on 3.13. And as you say, it was introduced in a new release. What happens when the other side goes and says “3.14.5 regressed on the GC pause times and my p95 web server latencies went up. Please revert”? At least one side can make the case “performance was changed on a major release of Python boundary” while the other is changing the performance on a minor release boundary. It’s an arbitrary decision that speaks to the politics of the organization and less about a well reasoned technical plan.
I really don’t have words. When people bemoan the state of software engineering, your comment here is exactly what they’re talking about.
As for Windows, I think you need a better example. OSes frequently change their performance profile on certain workloads and use more memory. Terrible example.
Also please cool it with the personal insults. They’re not productive and shows you’re trying to win the argument through force and emotion instead of reason.
You mean software that has to be deployed locally? Like the example I gave?
> you'd know the world of difference
It's actually worse. The longer you take to get a fixed version out there, the more people will install the buggy version. As distribution is more difficult than just merging a Github PR, that buggy version will live longer on live systems. And before you say "but it's on the developer/DevOps/sysadmin to test," I point you to the countless CVEs where this didn't happen.
Knowing this is the situation, it's unconscionable to leave a faulty build on live for longer than necessary, when you can rollback the change with limited risk.
In fact, I think Guido himself resigned due to the experience he had trying to get a PEP through the committee.
If you're referring to the steering council, that group was created in response to Guido stepping down.
He stepped down partly in response to the changing nature of online discussions around changes to the language. He just didn't want to be at the center of every polarizing discussion anymore. I think he also recognized that the transition needed to happen at some point, and that was as good a time as any.