Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis posted on Tue, 23 Mar 2010 16:37:34
+0100 as excerpted:

> 2010-03-22 22:12:54 Jacob Godserv napisał(a):
>> On Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 10:11, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis
>> <> wrote:
>> > 2010-03-20 01:51:44 Duncan napisał(a):
>> >> So let's just recognize that it's not a perfect situation, create a
>> >> news item saying that python-3 will soon (give a date) be unmasked,
>> >> and suggest that users not needing it may wish to package.mask it
>> >> themselves, with a link to documentation with specific instructions
>> >> and a bit more detail on why they might wish to mask it and under
>> >> what circumstances they might not.
>> >>
>> >> I'd suggest an unmasking date 30 days after the release of the news
>> >> item.
>> >
>> > Python 3 is not masked. The discussion is about stabilization.
>> Duncan's comments still apply, though, right? What's against writing a
>> news item about stabilizing Python?
> There is already a thread about news item:

(link wrapped)

But that doesn't mention that users may wish to package.mask it, to avoid 
having it on their systems at all.  That's what /I/ was suggesting in 
/this/ thread, that a news item (presumably that one) should mention the 
package.mask option.

That really does seem to be about the best compromise, given the situation 
as described so well in this thread.

Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master."  Richard Stallman

Reply via email to