Re: [Python-Dev] Status of 2.7 and 3.2

Eric Pruitt gmail.com> writes: > > I am in the process of implementing a > number of often requested features and proposed patches in the subprocess > module for my Google Summer of Code 2009 project. For information on > my progress, check out my blog located at http://subdev.blogspot.com/.

Re: [Python-Dev] Status of 2.7 and 3.2

Lennart Regebro writes: > 2009/6/7 Stephen J. Turnbull : > > Python's 2.x/py3k division is a tour de force; I still can't believe > > my eyes that you've pulled it off. > > Well, It's not pulled off until Python 3 has surpassed Python 2 in > usage. I'm referring only to the management of th

Re: [Python-Dev] Status of 2.7 and 3.2

2009/6/7 Stephen J. Turnbull : > Python's 2.x/py3k division is a tour de force; I still can't believe > my eyes that you've pulled it off. Well, It's not pulled off until Python 3 has surpassed Python 2 in usage. That's still a long way away. I'm not familiar with the other examples except Zope 3,

Re: [Python-Dev] Status of 2.7 and 3.2

I am in the process of implementing a number of often requested features and proposed patches in the subprocess module for my Google Summer of Code 2009 project. For information on my progress, check out my blog located at * http://subdev.blogspot.com/* . Any comments a

Re: [Python-Dev] Status of 2.7 and 3.2

On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 11:01 PM, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote: > > I am not quite sure whether you are for new features or not. Your > first sentence ("vote for ... not adding new features") seems to > suggest that you would not like to see new features, and your last > sentence ("absence of native cur

Re: [Python-Dev] Status of 2.7 and 3.2

> Just my 0.02 cents, but struggling with all warts of 2.5 subprocessing > in Windows I would vote for more time for stabilizating things - not > adding new features. Long awaited subprocess as replacement for > os.popen() AFAIK is still incapable to asynchronously communicate with > spawned proces

Re: [Python-Dev] Status of 2.7 and 3.2

anatoly techtonik gmail.com> writes: > > Just my 0.02 cents, but struggling with all warts of 2.5 subprocessing > in Windows I would vote for more time for stabilizating things - not > adding new features. Long awaited subprocess as replacement for > os.popen() AFAIK is still incapable to asynchr

Re: [Python-Dev] Status of 2.7 and 3.2

On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 6:21 AM, Terry Reedy wrote: > > I have thought that 2.7 was now to come out instead with 3.2 and would > include backported 3.2 new features.  Others expect 2.7 to come out soon > after 3.1 and to only contain new 3.1 features.  So Guido or someone, please > clarify: is 2.7

Re: [Python-Dev] Status of 2.7 and 3.2

Raymond Hettinger wrote: > How about we just continue to improve both branches, doing forward or > backports as appropriate. No need to develop a policy of crippling > one branch on the theory that it will make the other seem more > attractive. > > Besides, if 2.7 and 3.2 get released within a fe

Re: [Python-Dev] Status of 2.7 and 3.2

Martin v. Löwis wrote: > I don't think that the policy has been articulated in exactly that > way, and it certainly wasn't implemented for 2.6/3.0. 2.6 was released > with features that had not been released in any 3.x release, just > because 3.x had not been released at all. I don't think the ide

Re: [Python-Dev] Status of 2.7 and 3.2

How about we just continue to improve both branches, doing forward or backports as appropriate. No need to develop a policy of crippling one branch on the theory that it will make the other seem more attractive. Besides, if 2.7 and 3.2 get released within a few months of each other, any inver

Re: [Python-Dev] Status of 2.7 and 3.2

On Sun, 7 Jun 2009 at 21:55, Michael Foord wrote: R. David Murray wrote: [snip...] > By the policy you propose, we could not have released 2.6 in October > 2008, which we really really wanted to because Apple wanted us to. I don't think the 2.6 release date is relevant to this discussion,

Re: [Python-Dev] Status of 2.7 and 3.2

Terry Reedy wrote: [snip...] I don't think that's a novel idea though - I'm pretty sure it was suggested (and met with general approval) when the idea of a short release cycle for 3.1 was first brought up. I presume because it has been stated before. In addition to the question above, I am a

Re: [Python-Dev] Status of 2.7 and 3.2

Nick Coghlan wrote: Martin v. Löwis wrote: I have thought that 2.7 was now to come out instead with 3.2 and would include backported 3.2 new features. Others expect 2.7 to come out soon after 3.1 and to only contain new 3.1 features. So Guido or someone, please clarify: is 2.7 to be the counte

Re: [Python-Dev] Status of 2.7 and 3.2

2009/6/7 Michael Foord : > R. David Murray wrote: >> >> [snip...] >>> >>> By the policy you propose, we could not have released 2.6 in October >>> 2008, which we really really wanted to because Apple wanted us to. >> >> I don't think the 2.6 release date is relevant to this discussion, >> since 3.x

Re: [Python-Dev] Status of 2.7 and 3.2

R. David Murray wrote: [snip...] By the policy you propose, we could not have released 2.6 in October 2008, which we really really wanted to because Apple wanted us to. I don't think the 2.6 release date is relevant to this discussion, since 3.x hadn't been released at all at that point. What

Re: [Python-Dev] Status of 2.7 and 3.2

On Sun, 7 Jun 2009 at 21:21, "Martin v. L?wis" wrote: I'm neutral on time frames, but I think that it _should_ be a policy that new features only get released to the 2.x branch after they have been released in the 3.x branch. Or, rather, I though that policy was implicit in the idea that we were

Re: [Python-Dev] Status of 2.7 and 3.2

On Jun 7, 2009, at 12:55 PM, Martin v. Löwis wrote: Assuming the policy "release new features for 2.x only after they got released for 3.x". I don't think such a policy actually exists. The policy, as I remember it, can be summed up: don't innovate new features in the 2.x branch. Meaning, a

Re: [Python-Dev] Status of 2.7 and 3.2

> I'm neutral on time frames, but I think that it _should_ be a policy > that new features only get released to the 2.x branch after they have > been released in the 3.x branch. Or, rather, I though that policy was > implicit in the idea that we weren't _automatically_ backporting features, > spec

Re: [Python-Dev] Status of 2.7 and 3.2

On Sun, 7 Jun 2009 at 18:55, "Martin v. L?wis" wrote: B. "Yes." This answer means that the 3.1 to 3.2 development cycle will need to be truncated by roughly 6 months so that 3.2 can be released before 2.7 with any new features of interest. The 3.2 and 2.7 releases should then occur within a fe

Re: [Python-Dev] Status of 2.7 and 3.2

Nick Coghlan wrote: > Martin v. Löwis wrote: >>> I have thought that 2.7 was now to come out instead with 3.2 and would >>> include backported 3.2 new features. Others expect 2.7 to come out soon >>> after 3.1 and to only contain new 3.1 features. So Guido or someone, >>> please clarify: is 2.7 t

Re: [Python-Dev] Status of 2.7 and 3.2

Martin v. Löwis wrote: >> I have thought that 2.7 was now to come out instead with 3.2 and would >> include backported 3.2 new features. Others expect 2.7 to come out soon >> after 3.1 and to only contain new 3.1 features. So Guido or someone, >> please clarify: is 2.7 to be the counterpart of 3.

Re: [Python-Dev] Status of 2.7 and 3.2

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: > "Martin v. Löwis" writes: > > > I'm not sure that the concept of a "trunk" branch still exists in > > Mercurial. PEP 385 apparently doesn't have resolved the branch strategy > > for Mercurial yet. With cloned branches,

Re: [Python-Dev] Status of 2.7 and 3.2

"Martin v. Löwis" writes: > I'm not sure that the concept of a "trunk" branch still exists in > Mercurial. PEP 385 apparently doesn't have resolved the branch strategy > for Mercurial yet. With cloned branches, I think the concept of a > "trunk" becomes irrelevant. "Trunk" exists as a technic

Re: [Python-Dev] Status of 2.7 and 3.2

> I have thought that 2.7 was now to come out instead with 3.2 and would > include backported 3.2 new features. Others expect 2.7 to come out soon > after 3.1 and to only contain new 3.1 features. So Guido or someone, > please clarify: is 2.7 to be the counterpart of 3.1 or 3.2? Neither, nor. 2.

[Python-Dev] Status of 2.7 and 3.2

2.7 Once upon a time, the plan was to come out with 2.6 and 3.0, and then after the usual interval, 2.7 and 3.1. As it turned out, 3.0 came out 3 months after 2.6, but, as it typical of x.0 releases, had some flaws leading to 3.1 now just 6 month later. I have thought that 2.7 was now to co