On Mar 23, 7:49 pm, Martin v. Löwis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At the PyCon sprint, I started porting Django to Python 3.0. In the > process, I had to make a number of changes to Python, so this port > currently requires the Python 3.0 subversion head (soon to be released > as 3.0a4). ... > a) split the patch into separate chunks, and contribute them > separately. > b) hand the entire patch over to somebody interested in completing it > c) complete it, then submit it > d) abandon it
Very cool! Maybe it would be best not to apply it as separate patches on the current trunk, but to make it a branch, at least until it can be clearly established that the single-version-plus-2to3 approach will actually work for all of Django. I wasn't at PyCon, and haven't done any 3.0 porting work myself, so I could be behind the times, but my understanding of current porting advice (based on PEP 3000) was that it's not going to be possible to support 2.x and 3.x from a single codebase in many cases (even with 2to3) if Python < 2.6 needs to be supported. Right? I also wonder, is it worth adding this stuff to Django *now* for a transition that is likely to be quite far off, with at least two big merges (qs-rf, nfa, possibly gis) coming up soonish? In any case, it's cool to see the work, and I look forward to the day I'm running Django on Python 3. pb pb --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
