On 06:41 pm, [email protected] wrote:
On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 7:11 PM, P.J. Eby <[email protected]>
wrote:
I'll use the same strategy than sysconfig :
- if the API is just moved to another place and works exactly the
same way
�(e.g. like what's planned for make_archive), it will �be dropped,
and the
�documentation will refer to the new place.
Is this the standard procedure for relocation of stdlib APIs across
2.x
releases?
I was under the impression that the standard is to do such things
across two
release cycles with a deprecation.
I was under the same impression at first (that's how I did at first
for distutils.sysconfig in my branch) but then MAL suggested in
python-dev that I could simply update the documentation for these
APIs, so I've followed that strategy.
Unlike micro releases, I don't think Distutils in 2.7 has to strictly
behave like in 2.6, API-wise, especially since a standalone backport
will be released for 2.6. Notice that other changes are coming up once
the series of PEP we worked on are accepted (which should be before
Pycon - at least for 345 and 386)
There really is no standard for this. The few times it's been raised on
python-dev to create one, discussion has puttered out rather quickly
with no resolution.
I think that if the people doing this work (so, largely Tarek at this
point) want, though, they can decide on a specific policy for distutils.
If so, this should be documented somewhere as well, so that people know
what to expect when upgrading distutils somehow (either via a stand-
alone package or with a new version of Python).
Jean-Paul
_______________________________________________
Distutils-SIG maillist - [email protected]
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
