On Nov 8, 2010, at 6:08 PM, Lennart Regebro wrote:
2010/11/8 James Y Knight f...@fuhm.net:
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, [...]
James Y Knight writes:
On Nov 8, 2010, at 6:08 PM, Lennart Regebro wrote:
2010/11/8 James Y Knight f...@fuhm.net:
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
2010/10/28 Kristján Valur Jónsson krist...@ccpgames.com:
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
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, and
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 11/08/2010 04:42 AM, Lennart Regebro wrote:
2010/10/28 Kristján Valur Jónsson krist...@ccpgames.com:
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
2010/11/8 James Y Knight f...@fuhm.net:
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
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
2010/11/1 Kristján Valur Jónsson krist...@ccpgames.com:
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
On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 10:41 AM, Terry Reedy tjre...@udel.edu 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
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
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 fix
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
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
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 is
On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 02:55:55 -0400
Glyph Lefkowitz gl...@twistedmatrix.com 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
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
Kristján Valur Jónsson kristjan at 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
Vinay Sajip vinay_sajip at 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
Brett Cannon wrote:
2010/10/28 Kristján Valur Jónsson krist...@ccpgames.com:
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
2010/10/29 M.-A. Lemburg m...@egenix.com:
Brett Cannon wrote:
2010/10/28 Kristján Valur Jónsson krist...@ccpgames.com:
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.
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
Benjamin Peterson wrote:
2010/10/29 M.-A. Lemburg m...@egenix.com:
Brett Cannon wrote:
2010/10/28 Kristján Valur Jónsson krist...@ccpgames.com:
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
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 actually
2010/10/29 M.-A. Lemburg m...@egenix.com:
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
On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 02:55:55 -0400, Glyph Lefkowitz gl...@twistedmatrix.com
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
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 10/29/2010 10:21 AM, Benjamin Peterson wrote:
2010/10/29 M.-A. Lemburg m...@egenix.com:
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
On 02:51 am, br...@python.org wrote:
2010/10/28 Kristj�n Valur J�nsson krist...@ccpgames.com:
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
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 has
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 use of
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 far got
On Fri, 2010-10-29 at 09:11 +0200, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 02:55:55 -0400
Glyph Lefkowitz gl...@twistedmatrix.com 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
On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 11:55 PM, Glyph Lefkowitz
gl...@twistedmatrix.com 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
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 11:12 AM, geremy condra debat...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 11:55 PM, Glyph Lefkowitz
gl...@twistedmatrix.com 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
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. Roughly
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 think
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 only
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 12:21 PM, Barry Warsaw ba...@python.org 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
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
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 be
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
That's a much better idea!
Sent from my digital lollipop.
On Oct 29, 2010, at 3:31 PM, Ian Bicking i...@colorstudy.com wrote:
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 12:21 PM, Barry Warsaw ba...@python.org wrote:
On Oct 29, 2010, at 12:43 PM, Casey Duncan wrote:
I like Python 3, I am using it for my
2010/10/29 Barry Warsaw ba...@python.org:
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
On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 15:54:19 -0400
Barry Warsaw ba...@python.org 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.
It certainly doesn't have to.
Sent from my digital lollipop.
On Oct 29, 2010, at 4:06 PM, Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net wrote:
On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 15:54:19 -0400
Barry Warsaw ba...@python.org wrote:
Another quick thought. What would people think about regular timed releases
if python
2010/10/29 Barry Warsaw ba...@python.org:
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
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, my
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 monthly
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
Am 28.10.2010 06:13, schrieb Daniel Stutzbach:
2010/10/27 Kristján Valur Jónsson krist...@ccpgames.com
mailto:krist...@ccpgames.com
Firstly, the ease of integrating changes. It would be possible to port
those bugfixes that release-27 gets, and also backport selected things
from
On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 08:48, Georg Brandl g.bra...@gmx.net 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
2010/10/28 Kristján Valur Jónsson krist...@ccpgames.com:
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
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
On Wed, 27 Oct 2010 23:05:37 -0500
Benjamin Peterson benja...@python.org wrote:
2010/10/27 Kristján Valur Jónsson krist...@ccpgames.com:
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
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
management
2010/10/28 Kristján Valur Jónsson krist...@ccpgames.com:
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
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
Kristj?n Valur J?nsson krist...@ccpgames.com 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
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
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 to be
Am 28.10.2010 18:07, schrieb l...@rmi.net:
Kristj?n Valur J?nsson krist...@ccpgames.com 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
Kristján Valur Jónsson krist...@ccpgames.com 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,
On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 12:07 PM, l...@rmi.net 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
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 some
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
On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 9:04 AM, Barry Warsaw ba...@python.org 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,
On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 11:48 PM, Georg Brandl g.bra...@gmx.net wrote:
Am 28.10.2010 06:13, schrieb Daniel Stutzbach:
2010/10/27 Kristján Valur Jónsson krist...@ccpgames.com
mailto:krist...@ccpgames.com
Firstly, the ease of integrating changes. It would be possible to port
those
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,
-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 maintained
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 10/28/2010 09:33 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
2010/10/28 Kristján Valur Jónsson krist...@ccpgames.com:
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
On Thu, 28 Oct 2010 10:25:28 -0700
Ian Bicking i...@colorstudy.com 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
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
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 very
(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 parallel
Am 28.10.2010 18:07, schrieb l...@rmi.net:
Kristj?n Valur J?nsson krist...@ccpgames.com 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
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 3:47 AM, Tres Seaver tsea...@palladion.com 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.
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 a Python 2.8
accomplish?
If Python 2.8 doesn't include new features, well, then what's the point?
Python 2.7
] 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
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
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
2010/10/27 Kristján Valur Jónsson krist...@ccpgames.com
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
2010/10/27 Kristján Valur Jónsson krist...@ccpgames.com
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)
--
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’t”.
: 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
2010/10/27 Kristján Valur Jónsson krist...@ccpgames.com:
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,
2010/10/27 Kristján Valur Jónsson krist...@ccpgames.com
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
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 still
86 matches
Mail list logo
