Antoine Pitrou <pit...@free.fr> added the comment: > The arguments given in that thread sound a bit strange to me: > just because there were no changes to a few files, doesn't really > say anything about whether they contain working code or not.
That was a heuristic. Files which do not get any maintenance for years while other similar files do are quite suspicious. Given that nobody stepped up to contradict this hypothesis of mine, I assume it was right after all ;) More seriously, all the APIs in question (and most of their supporting systems: IRIX etc.) seem practically dead. I don't want to rehash that discussion here, but you can post on python-dev if you want. > You could just as well remove them right now: if the GIL doesn't > work on OS/2, then having support for it in the _thread module > isn't really worth much, is it ? Andrew told me he believed it possible to port the new GIL to OS/2. So perhaps he'll do that before 3.2 is out. > With just NT and POSIX thread support, I think backporting the > new GIL implementation to 2.7 is not possible - we'd have to go > through a standard PEP 11 deprecation process and there are not > enough 2.x releases left for that. It could only be backported > as optional feature, to be enabled by a configure option. Right. That's what I think too. ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue7753> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
