Re: [Python-Dev] Continuing 2.x

James Y Knight writes: > > On Nov 8, 2010, at 6:08 PM, Lennart Regebro wrote: > > > 2010/11/8 James Y Knight : > >> On Nov 8, 2010, at 4:42 AM, Lennart Regebro wrote: > >>> So it can be done, but the question is "Why?" > >> > >> To keep the batteries included? > > > > But they'll only

Re: [Python-Dev] Continuing 2.x

On Nov 8, 2010, at 6:08 PM, Lennart Regebro wrote: > 2010/11/8 James Y Knight : >> On Nov 8, 2010, at 4:42 AM, Lennart Regebro wrote: >>> So it can be done, but the question is "Why?" >> >> To keep the batteries included? > > But they'll only be included in > 2.7, which won't be used much, [...

Re: [Python-Dev] Continuing 2.x

2010/11/8 James Y Knight : > On Nov 8, 2010, at 4:42 AM, Lennart Regebro wrote: >> Except for making releases that start backporting Python 3 features >> and breaking backwards compatibility gradually (which may or may not >> be a good idea) I don't see the point. There isn't much to do when it >>

Re: [Python-Dev] Continuing 2.x

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 11/08/2010 04:42 AM, Lennart Regebro wrote: > 2010/10/28 Kristján Valur Jónsson : >> Hello all. >> >> >> >> So, python 2.7 is in bugfix only mode. ‘trunk’ is off limit. So, where >> does one make improvements to the distinguished, and still very m

Re: [Python-Dev] Continuing 2.x

On Nov 8, 2010, at 4:42 AM, Lennart Regebro wrote: > Except for making releases that start backporting Python 3 features > and breaking backwards compatibility gradually (which may or may not > be a good idea) I don't see the point. There isn't much to do when it > comes to improving the language,

Re: [Python-Dev] Continuing 2.x

2010/10/28 Kristján Valur Jónsson : > Hello all. > > > > So, python 2.7 is in bugfix only mode.  ‘trunk’ is off limit.  So, where > does one make improvements to the distinguished, and still very much alive, > 2.x series of Python? > > The answer would seem to be “one doesn’t”.  But must it be that

Re: [Python-Dev] Continuing 2.x

2010/11/1 Kristján Valur Jónsson : > I've been sitting on the sideline seeing this unfold. > We've seen some different viewpoints on the matter and I'm happy to see that > I'm not the only one lamenting the proclaimed death of the 2.x linage. > However, As correctly stated by Martin, I merely voic

Re: [Python-Dev] Continuing 2.x

I've been sitting on the sideline seeing this unfold. We've seen some different viewpoints on the matter and I'm happy to see that I'm not the only one lamenting the proclaimed death of the 2.x linage. However, As correctly stated by Martin, I merely voiced a suggestion and I have gotten helpful

Re: [Python-Dev] Continuing 2.x

On Oct 29, 2010, at 04:23 PM, Benjamin Peterson wrote: >At the moment, I'm planning to do regular maintenance releases for 3.1 and >2.7 roughly every 6 months. Cool. The actual interval doesn't matter as much as the regularity. I say that speaking as a semi-former RM who sadly didn't adhere to

Re: [Python-Dev] Continuing 2.x

On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 10:41 AM, Terry Reedy wrote: > The few issues that would get such a 2.7+ tag can just as well be marked > 2.7/closed/postponed. Using closed+postponed as the resolution for 2.x specific feature requests sounds fine. Feature requests that are also applicable to 3.x can jus

Re: [Python-Dev] Continuing 2.x

On 10/30/2010 6:32 PM, Neil Schemenauer wrote: I have a specific, easy to implement proposal. I would like one more version tag added to the Roundup tracker. My proposed name is "Python 2.7+" but I don't care what it is called. As a tracker gardener, I disagree. I would expect such to cause m

Re: [Python-Dev] Continuing 2.x

I have a specific, easy to implement proposal. I would like one more version tag added to the Roundup tracker. My proposed name is "Python 2.7+" but I don't care what it is called. It would be used to tag bug reports and patches that apply only to the 2.x line and are considered not appropriate

Re: [Python-Dev] Continuing 2.x

Casey Duncan writes: > However there are many many more users of Python 2.x than Python > 3.x. Many may never upgrade for the life of these projects, > because if it ain't broke, why fix it? It doesn't matter how much > better Python 3 is than Python 2. It isn't better enough. And the "don't

Re: [Python-Dev] Continuing 2.x

Antoine Pitrou wrote: Even if there were no trademark, I think it would be wrong for a separate project to adopt the same name without agreement from the original group of contributors. I have never seen a fork which didn't change the name of the project. +1 -- Steven ___

Re: [Python-Dev] Continuing 2.x

Am 29.10.2010 21:54, schrieb Barry Warsaw: > Another quick thought. What would people think about regular timed > releases if python 2.7? This is probably more a question for > Benjamin but doing sonmight provide better predictability and > "customer service" to our users. I might like to see mont

Re: [Python-Dev] Continuing 2.x

Barry Warsaw wrote: > On Oct 29, 2010, at 12:43 PM, Casey Duncan wrote: > >> I like Python 3, I am using it for my latest projects, but I am also keeping >> Python 2 compatibility. This incurs some overhead, and basically means I am >> still really only using Python 2 features. So in some respects

Re: [Python-Dev] Continuing 2.x

2010/10/29 Barry Warsaw : > Another quick thought. What would people think about regular timed releases > if python 2.7?  This is probably more a question for Benjamin but doing > sonmight provide better predictability and "customer service" to our users. I > might like to see monthly releases b

Re: [Python-Dev] Continuing 2.x

It certainly doesn't have to. Sent from my digital lollipop. On Oct 29, 2010, at 4:06 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote: > On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 15:54:19 -0400 > Barry Warsaw wrote: >> Another quick thought. What would people think about regular timed releases >> if python 2.7? >> This is probably more

Re: [Python-Dev] Continuing 2.x

On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 15:54:19 -0400 Barry Warsaw wrote: > Another quick thought. What would people think about regular timed releases > if python 2.7? > This is probably more a question for Benjamin but doing sonmight > provide better predictability and "customer service" to our users. I > might l

Re: [Python-Dev] Continuing 2.x

2010/10/29 Barry Warsaw : > I had a brief conversation with Michael Foord yesterday and he's writing code > that works in 2.4 through 3.2, so for *some* code bases, it's tricky and ugly, > but possible. If the application does not involve a lot of I/O, 2.4 -> 3.2 support by using a unique code bas

Re: [Python-Dev] Continuing 2.x

That's a much better idea! Sent from my digital lollipop. On Oct 29, 2010, at 3:31 PM, Ian Bicking wrote: > On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 12:21 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote: > On Oct 29, 2010, at 12:43 PM, Casey Duncan wrote: > > >I like Python 3, I am using it for my latest projects, but I am also keepi

Re: [Python-Dev] Continuing 2.x

On 10/29/2010 2:41 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 11:12:28AM -0700, geremy condra wrote: On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 11:55 PM, Glyph Lefkowitz Let's take PyPI numbers as a proxy. There are ~8000 packages with a "Programming Language::Python" classifier. There are ~250 with "Pr

Re: [Python-Dev] Continuing 2.x

Another quick thought. What would people think about regular timed releases if python 2.7? This is probably more a question for Benjamin but doing sonmight provide better predictability and "customer service" to our users. I might like to see monthly releases but even quarterly would probably b

Re: [Python-Dev] Continuing 2.x

On 10/29/2010 9:42 AM, M.-A. Lemburg wrote: I don't see why we should not welcome a team of new developers who want to continue working on the 2.x series. Given the number of issues on the tracker, I think it would be great if there were some new 2.7-focused developers that would work on fixi

Re: [Python-Dev] Continuing 2.x

On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 12:21 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote: > On Oct 29, 2010, at 12:43 PM, Casey Duncan wrote: > > >I like Python 3, I am using it for my latest projects, but I am also > keeping > >Python 2 compatibility. This incurs some overhead, and basically means I > am > >still really only using

Re: [Python-Dev] Continuing 2.x

On Oct 29, 2010, at 12:43 PM, Casey Duncan wrote: >I like Python 3, I am using it for my latest projects, but I am also keeping >Python 2 compatibility. This incurs some overhead, and basically means I am >still really only using Python 2 features. So in some respects, my Python 3.x >support is on

Re: [Python-Dev] Continuing 2.x

On Oct 28, 2010, at 10:59 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: > Mark's position is different. His words suggest that he thinks that > Python.org owes the users something, although if pressed I imagine > he'd present some argument that more users will lead to development of > a better language. I thin

Re: [Python-Dev] Continuing 2.x

On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 11:12:28AM -0700, geremy condra wrote: > On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 11:55 PM, Glyph Lefkowitz > > Let's take PyPI numbers as a proxy.  There are ~8000 packages with a > > "Programming Language::Python" classifier.  There are ~250 with "Programming > > Langauge::Python::3".  Rou

Re: [Python-Dev] Continuing 2.x

On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 11:12 AM, geremy condra wrote: > On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 11:55 PM, Glyph Lefkowitz > wrote: >> On Oct 28, 2010, at 10:51 PM, Brett Cannon wrote: [snip] > First off, unless you have a lot of information I don't, there's no > reason at all to believe that Python3's adoptio

Re: [Python-Dev] Continuing 2.x

On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 11:55 PM, Glyph Lefkowitz wrote: > On Oct 28, 2010, at 10:51 PM, Brett Cannon wrote: > > I think people need to stop viewing the difference between Python 2.7 > and Python 3.2 as this crazy shift and view it from python-dev's > perspective; it should be viewed one follows f

Re: [Python-Dev] Continuing 2.x

On Fri, 2010-10-29 at 09:11 +0200, Antoine Pitrou wrote: > On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 02:55:55 -0400 > Glyph Lefkowitz wrote: > > > > Let's say that 20% of the code on PyPI is just junk; > > it's unfair to expect 100% of all code ever to get ported. But, > still: > > with this back-of-the-envelope esti

Re: [Python-Dev] Continuing 2.x

On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 06:57:54PM +0200, "Martin v. L?wis" wrote: > > "Infrastructure" sounds to me like code for "money". > > No, it's rather "volunteer time". Of course, people keep proposing > that this should be replaced by hired time that gets paid from > donations, but all such proposals so

Re: [Python-Dev] Continuing 2.x

On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 16:41:19 - exar...@twistedmatrix.com wrote: > > Brett is speaking for himself here (and he never claimed otherwise!). > However, decisions about where to allow the use of the "Python" > trademark are made by the Python Software Foundation. The point is not to allow the u

Re: [Python-Dev] Continuing 2.x

> "Infrastructure" sounds to me like code for "money". No, it's rather "volunteer time". Of course, people keep proposing that this should be replaced by hired time that gets paid from donations, but all such proposals so far got stuck at implementation details (i.e. it's actual work that nobody h

Re: [Python-Dev] Continuing 2.x

On 02:51 am, br...@python.org wrote: 2010/10/28 Kristj�n Valur J�nsson : Hi all. This has been a lively discussion. My desire to keep 2.x alive in some sense is my own and I don't know if anyone shares it but as a member of this community I think I'm allowed to voice it.  So, just to clari

Re: [Python-Dev] Continuing 2.x

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 10/29/2010 10:21 AM, Benjamin Peterson wrote: > 2010/10/29 M.-A. Lemburg : >> Benjamin Peterson wrote: >>> He's not saying we shouldn't welcome them; we just don't want to it >>> attached to python-dev. >> >> That new team could be part of python-de

Re: [Python-Dev] Continuing 2.x

On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 02:55:55 -0400, Glyph Lefkowitz wrote: > I'm perfectly willing to admit that I'm still too pessimistic about this > and I could be wrong. But given the relatively minimal amount of effort > required to let 2.x bugs continue to get fixed under the aegis of > Python.org rather

Re: [Python-Dev] Continuing 2.x

2010/10/29 M.-A. Lemburg : > Benjamin Peterson wrote: >> He's not saying we shouldn't welcome them; we just don't want to it >> attached to python-dev. > > That new team could be part of python-dev, couldn't it ? Not necessarily > the mailing list, but the team of Python developers. Much like the >

Re: [Python-Dev] Continuing 2.x

"Martin v. Löwis" wrote: >> It's obvious that a large proportion of the existing python-dev'ers will >> not participate in such a project, but why should we try to stop someone >> else to work on it ? > > I propose to stop this discussion of theoretical projects, and only > restart it when someone

Re: [Python-Dev] Continuing 2.x

Benjamin Peterson wrote: > 2010/10/29 M.-A. Lemburg : >> Brett Cannon wrote: >>> 2010/10/28 Kristján Valur Jónsson : I'm not sure what I'm actually proposing. But I certainly wasn't thinking of a new "fork" of python. And not a new version 2.8 that gets all new 3.x features backp

Re: [Python-Dev] Continuing 2.x

> It's obvious that a large proportion of the existing python-dev'ers will > not participate in such a project, but why should we try to stop someone > else to work on it ? I propose to stop this discussion of theoretical projects, and only restart it when someone actually proposes to lead such a

Re: [Python-Dev] Continuing 2.x

2010/10/29 M.-A. Lemburg : > Brett Cannon wrote: >> 2010/10/28 Kristján Valur Jónsson : >>> I'm not sure what I'm actually proposing.  But I certainly wasn't thinking >>> of a new "fork" of python.  And not a new version 2.8 that gets all new 3.x >>> features backported. >>> I'm more thinking of

Re: [Python-Dev] Continuing 2.x

Brett Cannon wrote: > 2010/10/28 Kristján Valur Jónsson : >> I'm not sure what I'm actually proposing. But I certainly wasn't thinking >> of a new "fork" of python. And not a new version 2.8 that gets all new 3.x >> features backported. >> I'm more thinking of a place where usability improvemen

Re: [Python-Dev] Continuing 2.x

Vinay Sajip yahoo.co.uk> writes: > need to add, i.e. things which cannot be catered for by release27-maint? Or is > this just about the *principle* of having a 2.8? Never mind - I've just picked up the extra posts on this thread, which for some reason didn't show up in my reader before. Sorry fo

Re: [Python-Dev] Continuing 2.x

Kristján Valur Jónsson ccpgames.com> writes: > Let’s move the current ‘trunk’ into /branches/afterlife-27.  Open it for > submissions from people such as myself that use 2.7 on a regular basis and are > willing to give it some extra love. Just curious - what specific new features or backwards-in

Re: [Python-Dev] Continuing 2.x

> Right now, Kristján is burning off his (non-fungible) enthusiasm in this > discussion rather than addressing more 2.x maintenance issues. If 3.x > adoption takes off and makes a nice hockey stick graph, then few people > will care about this in retrospect. In the intervening hypothetical > half

Re: [Python-Dev] Continuing 2.x

On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 02:55:55 -0400 Glyph Lefkowitz wrote: > > Let's say that 20% of the code on PyPI is just junk; > it's unfair to expect 100% of all code ever to get ported. But, still: > with this back-of-the-envelope estimate of the rate of porting, it will > take over 50 years before a deci

Re: [Python-Dev] Continuing 2.x

On Oct 28, 2010, at 10:51 PM, Brett Cannon wrote: > I think people need to stop viewing the difference between Python 2.7 > and Python 3.2 as this crazy shift and view it from python-dev's > perspective; it should be viewed one follows from the other at this > point. You can view it as Python 3.2

Re: [Python-Dev] Continuing 2.x

Brett Cannon writes: > I think people need to stop viewing the difference between Python 2.7 > and Python 3.2 as this crazy shift and view it from python-dev's > perspective; That phrasing *is* harsh. People also need to work with code bases that are incompatible with Python 3.2 for various r

Re: [Python-Dev] Continuing 2.x

made the release are welcome to and there won't be any ill will or hard feelings if that does occur. -Brett > > Cheers, > > Kristján > > -Original Message- > From: python-dev-bounces+kristjan=ccpgames@python.org > [mailto:python-dev-bounces+kristjan=ccpga

Re: [Python-Dev] Continuing 2.x

unces+kristjan=ccpgames@python.org [mailto:python-dev-bounces+kristjan=ccpgames@python.org] On Behalf Of Barry Warsaw Sent: Friday, October 29, 2010 0:04 To: python-dev@python.org Subject: Re: [Python-Dev] Continuing 2.x Who is the target audience for a Python 2.8? What exactly would

Re: [Python-Dev] Continuing 2.x

On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 3:47 AM, Tres Seaver wrote: > I think that assumption may not be warranted.  If the current core folks > are focused only on developing Python 3, but others are working on a > notional 2.8, there is no necessary correlation any longer between the > two.  In particular, the

Re: [Python-Dev] Continuing 2.x

Am 28.10.2010 18:07, schrieb l...@rmi.net: > Kristj?n Valur J?nsson writes: >> James Y Knight said: >> The python community has already decided many times over that Python2 is >> dead >> and Python3 is the future >> >> But the patient is very much alive and kicking, no matter what the good >> d

Re: [Python-Dev] Continuing 2.x

> (and, believe me, not having to backport new 3.x features to the 2.x > branch makes our work much easier than it was; people generally seem > to underestimate the amount of care needed for such things, especially > in areas where 2.x is significantly more complex - old-style classes, > two paral

Re: [Python-Dev] Continuing 2.x

l...@rmi.net writes: > But one can't help but wonder if most of the development community > is focused on some imaginary future user base, at the expense of > the much larger current user base. Of course not. Most of the development community is *focused* on a very real, very current, and ver

Re: [Python-Dev] Continuing 2.x

On 28/10/2010 13:20, R. David Murray wrote: On Thu, 28 Oct 2010 16:07:50 -, l...@rmi.net wrote: I hope 3.X use expands; in fact, I've bet the future of at least one book on it. And even 1/4 of new users seems a large enough subset to care about too. But one can't help but wonder if most of

Re: [Python-Dev] Continuing 2.x

On Thu, 28 Oct 2010 10:25:28 -0700 Ian Bicking wrote: > > Thinking about language features and core type this seems reasonable, but > with the standard library this seems less reasonable -- there's lots of > conservative changes to the standard library which aren't bug fixes, and the > more the s

Re: [Python-Dev] Continuing 2.x

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 10/28/2010 09:33 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote: > 2010/10/28 Kristján Valur Jónsson : >> Hello all. >> So, python 2.7 is in bugfix only mode. ‘trunk’ is off limit. So, where >> does one make improvements to the distinguished, and still very much alive, >

Re: [Python-Dev] Continuing 2.x

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 10/28/2010 12:04 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote: > Who is the target audience for a Python 2.8? What exactly would a Python 2.8 > accomplish? > > If Python 2.8 doesn't include new features, well, then what's the point? > Python 2.7 will be bug fix mainta

Re: [Python-Dev] Continuing 2.x

Barry Warsaw writes: > Maybe so, but I think it's actually more fun to be working on > something other people will actually use. ;) I think that the point is that the people will be doing this are supporting software to pay for Johnny's piano lessons, not for personal pleasure. I imagine many,

Re: [Python-Dev] Continuing 2.x

On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 11:48 PM, Georg Brandl wrote: > Am 28.10.2010 06:13, schrieb Daniel Stutzbach: >> 2010/10/27 Kristján Valur Jónsson > > >> >>     Firstly, the ease of integrating changes.  It would be possible to port >>     those bugfixes that release-27 gets

Re: [Python-Dev] Continuing 2.x

On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 9:04 AM, Barry Warsaw wrote: > Who is the target audience for a Python 2.8? What exactly would a Python > 2.8 > accomplish? > > If Python 2.8 doesn't include new features, well, then what's the point? > Python 2.7 will be bug fix maintained for a long time, longer in fact

Re: [Python-Dev] Continuing 2.x

On Thu, 28 Oct 2010 16:07:50 -, l...@rmi.net wrote: > I hope 3.X use expands; in fact, I've bet the future of at > least one book on it. And even 1/4 of new users seems a > large enough subset to care about too. But one can't help > but wonder if most of the development community is focused

Re: [Python-Dev] Continuing 2.x

On Oct 28, 2010, at 04:07 PM, l...@rmi.net wrote: >I hope 3.X use expands; in fact, I've bet the future of at >least one book on it. And even 1/4 of new users seems a >large enough subset to care about too. But one can't help >but wonder if most of the development community is focused >on som

Re: [Python-Dev] Continuing 2.x

On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 12:07 PM, wrote: .. > Has anyone here analyzed download stats on py.org lately? > Please feel free to prove me wrong, but by my reckoning, > and at least for Windows MSI installer files, people are > still downloading Python 2.X roughly 3 to 4 times more often > than Pytho

Re: [Python-Dev] Continuing 2.x

Kristján Valur Jónsson wrote: > Let's move the current 'trunk' into /branches/afterlife-27. Open it > for submissions from people such as myself that use 2.7 on a regular > basis and are willing to give it some extra love. Though I'm not personally convinced it's a good idea, I can see where so

Re: [Python-Dev] Continuing 2.x

Am 28.10.2010 18:07, schrieb l...@rmi.net: > Kristj?n Valur J?nsson writes: >> James Y Knight said: >> The python community has already decided many times over that Python2 is >> dead >> and Python3 is the future >> >> But the patient is very much alive and kicking, no matter what the good >>

Re: [Python-Dev] Continuing 2.x

On Oct 28, 2010, at 04:17 PM, exar...@twistedmatrix.com wrote: >On 04:04 pm, ba...@python.org wrote: >> >>I'd *much* rather this enthusiasm be spent on making Python 3 rock, and >in >>porting third party code to Python 3. > >Enthusiasm isn't fungible. Maybe so, but I think it's actually more fun

Re: [Python-Dev] Continuing 2.x

On 04:04 pm, ba...@python.org wrote: I'd *much* rather this enthusiasm be spent on making Python 3 rock, and in porting third party code to Python 3. Enthusiasm isn't fungible. Jean-Paul ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mai

Re: [Python-Dev] Continuing 2.x

Kristj?n Valur J?nsson writes: > James Y Knight said: > The python community has already decided many times over that Python2 is dead > and Python3 is the future > > But the patient is very much alive and kicking, no matter what the good > doctor > declares. Python 2.x is in widespread use, w

Re: [Python-Dev] Continuing 2.x

Who is the target audience for a Python 2.8? What exactly would a Python 2.8 accomplish? If Python 2.8 doesn't include new features, well, then what's the point? Python 2.7 will be bug fix maintained for a long time, longer in fact than previous Python 2 versions. So a no-feature Python 2.8 can'

Re: [Python-Dev] Continuing 2.x

2010/10/28 Kristján Valur Jónsson : > Hello all. > So, python 2.7 is in bugfix only mode.  ‘trunk’ is off limit.  So, where > does one make improvements to the distinguished, and still very much alive, > 2.x series of Python? > > The answer would seem to be “one doesn’t”.  But must it be that way?

Re: [Python-Dev] Continuing 2.x

> Let’s move the current ‘trunk’ into /branches/afterlife-27. Open it for > submissions from people such as myself that use 2.7 on a regular basis > and are willing to give it some extra love. Host it there without the > usual stringent python quality assurance, buildbot support, release > manage

Re: [Python-Dev] Continuing 2.x

On Wed, 27 Oct 2010 23:05:37 -0500 Benjamin Peterson wrote: > 2010/10/27 Kristján Valur Jónsson : > > Firstly, the ease of integrating changes.  It would be possible to port > > those bugfixes that release-27 gets, and also backport selected things from > > py3k using the tools already in place su

Re: [Python-Dev] Continuing 2.x

Le jeudi 28 octobre 2010 05:12:09, James Y Knight a écrit : > The python community has already decided many times over that Python2 is > dead and Python3 is the future. ... I think you'd be best off doing > so on your own infrastructure: convincing the python developers to support > such a thing is

Re: [Python-Dev] Continuing 2.x

2010/10/28 Kristján Valur Jónsson : > But the patient is very much alive and kicking, no matter what the good > doctor declares. No no! 'E's pining! Schiavo Simon ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/

Re: [Python-Dev] Continuing 2.x

On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 08:48, Georg Brandl wrote: > I believe we'll eventually have the ability to create user repos as well, so > that Kristjan can simply put his branch into one of these and still have it > on hg.python.org. +1. Cheers, Dirkjan ___

Re: [Python-Dev] Continuing 2.x

Am 28.10.2010 06:13, schrieb Daniel Stutzbach: > 2010/10/27 Kristján Valur Jónsson > > > Firstly, the ease of integrating changes. It would be possible to port > those bugfixes that release-27 gets, and also backport selected things > from > py3k using

Re: [Python-Dev] Continuing 2.x

Kristján Valur Jónsson writes: > Second, it would be an official nod from the python community that, > yes, we are not actively developing 2.x anymore, we want to focus > on 3.x but we acknowledge that there are members of our community > that cannot, for various reasons, move to 3.x, but stil

Re: [Python-Dev] Continuing 2.x

2010/10/27 Kristján Valur Jónsson > Firstly, the ease of integrating changes. It would be possible to port > those bugfixes that release-27 gets, and also backport selected things from > py3k using the tools already in place such as svnmerge. > py3k will soon be moving to Mercurial, so svnmerge

Re: [Python-Dev] Continuing 2.x

2010/10/27 Kristján Valur Jónsson : > Firstly, the ease of integrating changes.  It would be possible to port > those bugfixes that release-27 gets, and also backport selected things from > py3k using the tools already in place such as svnmerge. svn lets you merge across repos, I believe. > > Seco

Re: [Python-Dev] Continuing 2.x

: Thursday, October 28, 2010 11:45 To: Kristján Valur Jónsson Cc: Python-Dev (python-dev@python.org) Subject: Re: [Python-Dev] Continuing 2.x already plays host to some other, less official, projects such as stackless, so why not this? ___ Python-Dev

Re: [Python-Dev] Continuing 2.x

On Oct 27, 2010, at 10:22 PM, Kristján Valur Jónsson wrote: > Hello all. > > So, python 2.7 is in bugfix only mode. ‘trunk’ is off limit. So, where does > one make improvements to the distinguished, and still very much alive, 2.x > series of Python? > The answer would seem to be “one doesn’

Re: [Python-Dev] Continuing 2.x

2010/10/27 Kristján Valur Jónsson > Svn.python.org already plays host to some other, less official, projects > such as stackless, so why not this? > What are the benefits of hosting such a project on svn.python.org instead of somewhere else? (such as GitHub or BitBucket) -- Daniel Stutzbach, P

Re: [Python-Dev] Continuing 2.x

2010/10/27 Kristján Valur Jónsson > > So, here is my suggestion: > > Let’s move the current ‘trunk’ into /branches/afterlife-27. Open it for > submissions from people such as myself that use 2.7 on a regular basis and > are willing to give it some extra love. Host it there without the usual > s

[Python-Dev] Continuing 2.x

Hello all. So, python 2.7 is in bugfix only mode. 'trunk' is off limit. So, where does one make improvements to the distinguished, and still very much alive, 2.x series of Python? The answer would seem to be "one doesn't". But must it be that way? When Morris stopped producing the Oxford III