That would be SL2.8 :-) We cannot refer to Stackless Python, with respect to 2.8 unfortunately.
o_O Cheers, Richard. On 1/9/14, Emile van Sebille <[email protected]> wrote: > I think the potential audience is much larger than just the stackless > crowd. Lots of v2 users will delay going to v3 but would enjoy some of > the benefits of backported v3 features, and many may never move forward. > > We're already on the path of SLP2.8 -- I'm just suggesting we need not > be overly concerned with some potential future migration path to py3.x. > > Emile > > > On 1/8/2014 4:01 PM, Richard Tew wrote: >> From what I've read, most expect to upgrade to 3.x eventually, but >> have to stick with 2.x for now out of practicality. >> >> The work involved in going it alone and taking a 2.x fork in it's own >> direction, is immense compared to the work involved in piggybacking >> off the work of the 3.x developers by backporting, and primarily >> moving a 2.x fork towards 3.x. >> >> Cheers, >> Richard. >> >> On 1/9/14, Emile van Sebille <[email protected]> wrote: >>> On 1/8/2014 12:29 PM, Richard Tew wrote: >>> >>>> I think we should approach python-dev and try and get them. >>>> >>>> Is there a core developer we can get on board, who we can ask to >>>> broach the issue for us? Given there is somewhat of an antipathy for >>>> 2.8 on the mailing list, and we've provoked it before, it may be best >>>> if we get one of their team to sponsor the proposal. >>>> >>>> Really, what we're doing benefits Python 3.x migration in future, so >>>> them downvoting it is biting off their own hand to save their foot. >>>> >>> >>> Ultimately I see this less of a v2 to v3 migration issue than simply >>> calling a spade a spade -- we've now got v2 and v3 python languages. >>> One of which we're trying to keep breathing life into. And it doesn't >>> sound like the dev group is on board with there being two pythons (of >>> their own making no less!) >>> >>> Be honest now, how many of us interested in a stackless v2.8 are wanting >>> to migrate our code base to v3.x? I'd say none -- otherwise those would >>> be migrating. >>> >>> I'd forgo migration compatibility as an issue and move on to scratching >>> the itches. Let's grab the candy from v3 and save the migration battle >>> for that day that might never come. >>> >>> Steven's comment that migration, once the decision is made to do so, is >>> a one shot deal can help make the decision that providing for a >>> migration path need not be the motivation. >>> >>> Wondering-about-the-status-of-my-v1.6-codebase-ly y'rs, >>> >>> Emile >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Stackless mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://www.stackless.com/mailman/listinfo/stackless >>> > > > > _______________________________________________ > Stackless mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.stackless.com/mailman/listinfo/stackless > _______________________________________________ Stackless mailing list [email protected] http://www.stackless.com/mailman/listinfo/stackless
