Thanks Brett. I've moved the moratorium PEP to Status: Accepted. I've added the words about inclusion of 3.2 and exclusion of 3.3 (which were eaten by a svn conflict when I previously tried to add them) and added a section to th end stating that an extension will require another PEP.
--Guido On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 9:12 AM, Brett Cannon <br...@python.org> wrote: > On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 19:50, geremy condra <debat...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 9:41 PM, Guido van Rossum <gu...@python.org> wrote: >>> On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 5:45 PM, geremy condra <debat...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> I quote: >>>> >>>> "This PEP proposes a temporary moratorium (suspension) of all changes >>>> to the Python language syntax, semantics, and built-ins for a period >>>> of *at least two years* from the release of Python 3.1." >>>> >>>> Emphasis mine. >>> >>> I since added this: >>> >>> """In particular, >>> the moratorium would include Python 3.2 (to be released 18-24 months >>> after 3.1) but (unless explicitly extended) allow Python 3.3 to once >>> again include language changes.""" >>> >>>> Like I say, a definite end point would be much preferred to n > 2. >>> >>> My time machine doesn't work very well in the future. So I can't tell >>> what we'll find necessary 2 years from now. But I would be fine with >>> defining the time limit to be max(time(3.1) + 2 years, time(3.2)). >>> I.e. the moratorium (unless explicitly extended) ends as soon as 3.2 >>> has been released *and* at least 2 years have passed since 3.1. >> >> Ok, thanks for the clarification. Could you spell out what you would >> consider grounds for a future extension? >> > > We feel it's necessary as a group or Guido does, simple as that. You > can't plan it since it's over two years away. If the time comes and > people feel the moratorium has been beneficial and should go longer, > we will extend it. It will most likely be for the same reasons we > started it. > >>>> If possible, I'd also like to hear some of Steven's other points addressed. >>> >>> They haven't changed my mind. >> >> Ok, but the fact that you (or Steven) hold a particular set of beliefs >> is a singularly unconvincing argument. > > I disagree. Guido is the BDFL so his set of beliefs is enough unless > faced with a huge number of people disagreeing. That has not occurred > on this topic. > >>Could you explain why you >> don't agree, if only for the record? > > Enough happens on python-dev based on gut feeling that there isn't a > need. If we had to spell out objections to every email we received > while discussing a PEP, threads would never end. Heck, I think this > PEP discussion as gone on long enough and that Guido could pronounce > at this point. > > -Brett > -- --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido) _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
