What I don't understand is why cpython hasn't been forked long ago. Does it have some legal status preventing it from that? And whats with the mandatory contributors agreement? That sounds really odd in the day and age of freely forkable open source projects.
Sent from the æther. -------- Original message -------- From: Richard Tew <[email protected]> Date: To: The Stackless Python Mailing List <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Stackless] python 2.8 Maybe there's a lesson to be learned that you just can't make divergent jumps like this, and expect the community to follow. But then again, the community will have no choice but to eventually follow given 2.x is closed. Personally, I'm over it. It's all in the doing now, we release Stackless 2.8 because that's what we're interested in. Cheers, Richard. On 12/31/13, Kristján Valur Jónsson <[email protected]> wrote: > Alex Gaynor just blogged about the failed state of 3.x and the need to give > in and produce a better 2.x > > > > http://alexgaynor.net/2013/dec/30/about-python-3/ > _______________________________________________ Stackless mailing list [email protected] http://www.stackless.com/mailman/listinfo/stackless
_______________________________________________ Stackless mailing list [email protected] http://www.stackless.com/mailman/listinfo/stackless
