Yes, Ritchie,
On 21/11/13 22:08, Richard Tew wrote:
I find it hard to take that thread seriously.
There's the usual crowd that are firmly against a continued 2.x. I
see their names and their hardline attitude every time some
conversation like this comes up.
Then there are the people that cling to tenuous claims, in order to
push against it.
Suddenly, Stackless Python is confusing? After 12 years? Never have
I encountered someone install Stackless Python and think they were
installing normal Python.
And the trademark threats? What?! More nonsense.
I simply don't see the problem here. No reasonable person is going to
get confused, unless we approach it in a way where we plan to
intentionally make them so - which we don't.
Let's move forward with this. You're never going to make the list
happy. The people who always chime in with 3.x is the way forward,
and 2.x is dead, will never be satisfied.
Better to enjoy making positive progress, than wallow in their negativity.
I am delighted, and I am confused.
There is one thing that I will avoid: "Stackless Python 2.8".
This is a mixture of concerns as I see it. Partially opinions,
and I'm a bit disappointed with friends like Barry.
There are also very technical concerns, where Martin is delightful
to read.
And there is Chris Barkers input - started controversially, but in
the end sounded quite reasonable.
In any case, I will submit something, ASAP.
This is because I have a good customer (first time not CCP) who wants
the defininive Python 2.X solution for the next five or so years.
And I think this could benefit from an approach that deploys both
CPython and Stackless Python DLLs in the first place.
That was the reason why I was with Chris Barker, in the first place.
So if my small-brain is not too contorted (feel free to tell me because
I _do_ have brain issues), is it ok with you if I
- make a CPython/SPython 2010 combined distro
- Call that either CPython or SPython
- use that name space from now on
- have different .DLL names for these versions
- tell this officially
- create lots of extension modules that are needed and make sense
You got it - what I want is something that works, without having to discuss
for ages. I agree to work on certain things, but I disagree to have to
do it,
just for python.org. They are strong enough, we are weak enough. Right?
So I still see an advantage to be fast with a workable version for our
customers,
and that should count for us. This is most important to me right now.
Please contact me privately about the details.
cheers - and thanks for all the fish -- chris
--
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
