I think you should just start with 2.8.0b1 and keep it simple. I'm a little curious about the mention of only introducing features back ported from 3.x. Which features? All of them one by one, making this an onerous chore? Or just whichever as whoever has a vested stake needs to?
Cheers, Richard. On 11/14/13, Christian Tismer <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Kristjan and 2.8 heroes, > > On 13/11/13 15:04, Kristján Valur Jónsson wrote: >> >> Python 2.7.6 is upon us. >> >> I'll merge it in presently. >> > > that raises a question concerning python 2.8. > > What would you say: Is 2.8 starting like any new python version, > first version 2.8.0b1 and whatnot? > > Or: Does stackless 2.8 simply mirror the 2.7 numbering scheme, > because 2.8 is just a clone of the respective 2.7 versions, with some > back-ported features from 3.X? > > IOW. would I try to produce a 2.8.5 final right now? And a 2.8.6 later > because > the version is still bloody, stackless-wise? > > And how about micro-numbers, are they sufficient to maintain the > version of the added functionality? Or do we still need an extra version > for stackless appended? > > -- > Christian Tismer :^) <mailto:[email protected]> > Software Consulting : Have a break! Take a ride on Python's > Karl-Liebknecht-Str. 121 : *Starship* http://starship.python.net/ > 14482 Potsdam : PGP key -> http://pgp.uni-mainz.de > phone +49 173 24 18 776 fax +49 (30) 700143-0023 > PGP 0x57F3BF04 9064 F4E1 D754 C2FF 1619 305B C09C 5A3B 57F3 BF04 > whom do you want to sponsor today? http://www.stackless.com/ > > _______________________________________________ Stackless mailing list [email protected] http://www.stackless.com/mailman/listinfo/stackless
