Thank you for the detailed reply. I would be +1 for releasing an interim (alpha or whatever) release that includes the WebOb changes as that's where I saw the most potential advantage in skipping 0.9.6 and developing against the current development version.
- Justin On Jan 11, 2008 9:17 AM, Mike Orr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Jan 10, 2008 12:40 PM, Mike Orr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Routes 2 will have a different configuration syntax and > > url_for syntax, but you'll probably be able to use either Routes 2 or > > Routes 1 with 0.9.7 if you're happy with your existing routes. > > Actually, this would almost work except that Pylons would be depending > on a different version of Routes. > And unlike WebHelpers, which can be decoupled from Pylons relatively > easily, Routes is a large part of what makes Pylons Pylons. > > The user could reconcile this by hacking Pylons' dependencies in > setup.py and/or EGG-INFO and installing into a virtualenv. But they'd > have to remember to do this every time they upgrade Pylons. > > Alternatively, we could re-release the Routes 1.x series as Routes1. > Then users could keep old route maps by just changing the import in > routing.py. That would work for WebHelpers too (webhelpers_legacy). > > > -- > Mike Orr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "pylons-discuss" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pylons-discuss?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
