On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 3:48 PM, Christian Tismer <[email protected]> wrote: > I have been thinking about this for more than a day. > > According to the known thread on python-dev >> >> PEP 0404 and VS 2010 > > > we are not really encouraged to call our new stackless release > something that contains the strings "python" and "2.8". > > Using some random numbering also does not make sense for us, > for instance """Stackless Python 404""" would be clear for insiders, > but given the existing numbering scheme, it is totally necessary for > us to move forward sequentially in the sequence numbers, because we clearly > want to publish improvements to python 2.7..
Yes, as I see it we have to logically choose 2.8. We can't go higher, or else it becomes confusing with 3.x. > Policy change for Python: > --------------------- > > We do not mention python explicitly in documentation for stackless 2.8. I think this goes too far. We are primarily the Python programming language, but with a bit extra. To deny reference to Python does more harm than good IMO. > We include the un-modified documentation for python 2.7. Can I suggest an alternate approach. We use the name "Stackless 2.8", and we leave all Python references in the Stackless documentation. However, we put a header in the template with a short statement making it clear that this is not Python 2.8, and a link to further information. This should override any reasonable chance of accidental confusion where other pages might automatically have the combined words "Python 2.8". > All additions/extension/modifications are documented in extra documents > called "stackless-news" and "stackless-readme". Sounds fine. The tricking people to use Stackless isn't the way I would prefer we go about it. If it were up to me, I would just keep it simple. I would not #ifdef back-ported 3.x features. I would have it build "notpython 2.8" if STACKESS_OFF was defined. If people wanted to get involved and help back port features to an updated version of 2.7, they could do so and use it as a non-stackless python. We wouldn't provide binaries for "notpython 2.8", and if people wanted to get a properly supported 2.8, they'd simply migrate to the supported "stackless 2.8". Other than that, the rest of the post sounds fine. Cheers, Richard. _______________________________________________ Stackless mailing list [email protected] http://www.stackless.com/mailman/listinfo/stackless
