Graham Dumpleton wrote: > > On 14/08/2006, at 12:29 AM, Jim Gallacher wrote: > >>> Anyway, if we can make a decision that we will make new importer the >>> default in 3.3 that would be great and would allow me to progress with >>> other >>> ideas. When I have raised this question before though, never really >>> got any >>> responses or agreement on whether to proceed with making it the default. >>> >>> Graham >> >> I think part of the problem is that you are the only person that has >> taken the time to think through the import mechanism. It makes it >> difficult for the rest of us when we haven't made the effort to >> understand the deep magic. It's unfair to put that kind of pressure on >> you, but to some extent that is a result of a fairly small developer >> community. >> >> Is the importer change big enough to warrant a jump to 4.0, in order to >> indicate that this is a *major* change? > > I'm not totally sure, but whether it is called 3.3 or 4.0 we will still > have to > document the changes very well and will have to educate people. Most > people will probably blindly install it anyway even if called 4.0 and not > consider how it may be different.
I'm pretty sure that is what I would do. :) >> Either way (3.3 or 4.0 as the next release) I'm in favour of turning on >> the new importer by default. As long as users have the option of falling >> back to the old importer if things go pear-shaped I think we'll be OK. > > In which case calling it 3.3 is probably not a big deal, as the choice will > be there to restore the old behaviour. If it was an all or nothing change, > then would definitely need to be called 4.0. Perhaps it makes sense to call it 4.0 when the old behaviour is permanently removed, but introduce it as the default in 3.3. >> Not turning it on by default now means that won't happen for another >> year (if past history for releases is any idication). If it's just >> optional in 3.3 my guess is most users *won't* turn it on, so we really >> won't be that much further ahead. > > Too true. :-( > >> If and when we do turn it on by default we should make a much more >> vigorous attempt to solicit testing feedback from application >> developers, beyond getting people to just run the unit tests. > > Also want to probably interact with major packages which use mod_python > and have them explicitly check to make sure everything still works. Definitely. Jim
