On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 11:59 AM, DavidG<[email protected]> wrote: > > I am a bit concerned. The talk is that after 1.0, pylons will be > "done". Why is this, necessarily? > > My feeling is that any project that "stops", or just goes into > maintenance mode, loses a good reason for people to currently adapt > it. That is, while new versions and concepts can always give > heartburn, folks want to feel that by adapting a technology like > pylons, they are jumping on a train which for a "long" time will be at > the "cutting edge". Just look at rails - it is a continually evolving > entity (with definite incompatibilities between major versions). Yes, > the point has been made that pylons itself is rather small and that > its components themselves will evolve - but still, I think the issue > of abandonware scaring off potential people remains. > > I am not familiar with pypes, but if certain features are lacking in > pylons (which, of course, there are), why not propose a pylons 2.0 > which would have those features added? Or is the approach so different > that this wouldn't make sense? > > I, for one, would like to see pylons succeed - but to do this, it > *must* continue to evolve, IMHO.
You're assuming that "finished" means "unsupported", and that packages can't evolve under a different name. Maybe that's a marketing/terminology/branding issue. If we find some great compatible feature, it can go into Pylons 1.1. If we find some great incompatible feature, it can go into Pylons 2.0. But what would these features be? We don't know at this time, otherwise we'd be putting them into Pylons 0.x now. "Finished" does not mean that no features can ever be added, it just means that 1.0 is done and there's nothing on the todo list. It also means that people can use it in production knowing that a new version isn't going to make them upgrade right away. Pypes has a vision larger than Pylons. It aims to support several framework front ends, potentially swallowing up other Python frameworks. If we called it Pylons 2.0, it would piss off the other frameworks and also cause user confusion, because Pylons means a certain application API. But we can call the Pylons flavor of Pypes "Pylons 2.0" if that makes people feel happier. There is one big thing we haven't decided yet, and that's Python 3. Maybe that will be "Pylons 2.0". -- 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
