On 03/07/2010 07:11 PM, Mark Loeser wrote: > > Absolutely not. Its actually the opposite. Until 90+% of the tree just > works with the new version of python, it should not be stabilized. The > stable tree should all Just Work together. Stabilizing python-3 at this > point would be the equivalent of me stabilizing gcc-4.5 after its been > in the tree for a few months and nothing else works with it. Sure, gcc > works just fine, but it can't compile half of the tree. >
Bad analogy in my opinion. You don't really want to mix and match gcc versions while compiling packages but with python packages you can continue installing and running under 2* just fine. If a stable package uses 2* it's not a blocker for 3*. > I hope everyone can see that this is a terrible idea and of no use to > our stable users. If a stable user really needs Python-3, they will > have the technical ability to unmask it and use it properly. > In my opinion python-3 should go stable when there's enough ebuilds needing it as a dependency. It doesn't need to nowhere near 90% of python packages in the tree. Regards, Petteri
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
