I'd be fine with inside the brackets. On 3/8/14, Christian Tismer <[email protected]> wrote: > And why can we not just append it, see > > Python 3.3.3 (default, Dec 11 2013, 11:44:19) > > Some string could get inside at the end of the brackets. > > Agreed that for Stackless 2.8, it is not necessary, because there we > have the versioning totally under control. > > But what about the other versions which are still Python? > > - C. > > > On 07/03/14 21:41, Richard Tew wrote: >> My assumption is that most users will relate to the PEP 0404 >> numbering, and won't have a use for the Stackless versioning. >> >> Rather than: >> >> Stackless x.y SLP z.q >> >> I propose we have: >> >> Stackless x.y >> >> And then have z.q queryable through 'stackless.getversion()' or >> something similar. >> >> >> On 3/8/14, Christian Tismer <[email protected]> wrote: >>> The Stackless version was never maintained very well. >>> >>> "3.1b3" never changed after 2004-06-03 (!) >>> and so the version string was "3.1b3 040603". >>> >>> The version number was kept until today (although I wanted it to be >>> changed, >>> when major changes were done, but did not do it myself). >>> >>> From time to time I updated the date of the stackless version, like >>> these findings in an email history search: >>> ... >>> ! #define STACKLESS_VERSION "3.1b3 040719" >>> ... >>> ! #define STACKLESS_VERSION "3.1b3 041130" >>> ... >>> /* keep this entry up-to-date */ >>> -#define STACKLESS_VERSION "3.1b3 050929" >>> +#define STACKLESS_VERSION "3.1b3 060504" >>> >>> Andrew Dahlke did in fact what the comment says: >>> /* keep this entry up-to-date */ >>> -#define STACKLESS_VERSION "3.1b3 060504" >>> +#define STACKLESS_VERSION "3.1b3 060516"... >>> >>> For the records: 2006-05-15 was the first time that the PyQT problem was >>> mentioned ;-) >>> >>> So the 3.1b3 was never ever changed, even not on the 2006 Stackless >>> sprint. >>> >>> >>> On ditching the number: >>> --------------------- >>> >>> The number was meant to show a version of stackless design, which worked >>> until that 3.1b3 version. >>> The date was there to see when a version was created. >>> >>> I think it is bad do just ditch it, and it is bad to keep it as it is. >>> >>> When we submit stackless 2.8, the problem becomes worse, because >>> then the version number is the 0404 replacement for Python, and then >>> we have no version number for Stackless itself, at all. >>> >>> What to do? >>> >>> After all that many refinements, improvements and changes, a version >>> bump for >>> the stackless design is needed, and after all the new 3.x versions of >>> Python, >>> I think it is better to go on more drastically. >>> >>> What about the following example: >>> >>> "Stackless 2.8 SLP 4.0" for the 404 case, maybe with a SLP date >>> string as well >>> "Stackless 2.8 SLP 4.0 140207" >>> >>> and in the 2.7/3.x case until we completely migrate to Stackless: >>> >>> "Python 3.3 SLP 4.0 140207" >>> "Python 2.7.6 SLP 4.0 140207" >>> >>> or should we toss the "design date" in favor of finer SLP versioning? >>> >>> I think we should not go completely without it, but keep it apart from >>> python >>> version numbers, and also do an announcement. >>> >>> cheers - Chris >>> >>> >>> On 04.03.14 20:26, Richard Tew wrote: >>>> You mean like: >>>> >>>> Python 3.2.5 Stackless 3.2. >>>> >>>> It looks confusing. Better just to ditch the number I think. >>>> >>>> On 3/5/14, Kristján Valur Jónsson <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> why not just go with 3.2? Does anyone use this number at all anyway? >>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: [email protected] [mailto:stackless- >>>>>> [email protected]] On Behalf Of Richard Tew >>>>>> Sent: 3. mars 2014 02:20 >>>>>> To: [email protected] >>>>>> Subject: [Stackless] stackless_version.h >>>>>> >>>>>> 3.1b3 060516 is kind of a magic number, maybe we could do away with >>>>>> it? >>>>>> I >>>>>> was going to bump it to 3.2, but decided it would be a little >>>>>> confusing. >>>>>> >>>>>> Objections? >>>>>> >>>>>> Python 2.7.6r2 Stackless 3.1b3 060516 (default, Mar 3 2014, >>>>>> 15:11:44) >>>>>> [MSC >>>>>> v.1500 32 bit (Intel)] on win32 Type "help", "copyright", "credits" >>>>>> or >>>>>> "license" >>>>>> for more information. >>>>>> >>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>> Richard. >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> 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 >>> >>> >>> -- >>> 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 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Stackless mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://www.stackless.com/mailman/listinfo/stackless >> > > > -- > 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 >
_______________________________________________ Stackless mailing list [email protected] http://www.stackless.com/mailman/listinfo/stackless
