On 04/03/2018 10:10 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote: > The reason for sticking with 3.x for a while is because of the corner > \*nix systems have gotten stuck into regarding the "python" symlink, > and the fact it currently still points to "python2" (if it exists at > all). Once we've updated PEP 394 to recommend pointing it at Python 3 > (which is currently looking like it might happen around the 3.8 or 3.9 > time frame), then we can start talking about instead pointing it at > python 4.x, and making "python3" just be a confusingly named symlink > to python4.x.
I was definitely not suggesting this before the end of the Python 2 era, but I don't think Lukasz was suggesting this either. I'm suggesting it specifically for the period of time during which Python is using the "rolling backwards compatibility guarantee" standard laid out in the original posting. I would think in terms of evaluating this proposal, it is (in order) worth considering: 1. Is it a desirable goal 2. Is it an achievable goal? 3. How specifically can it be achieved? 4. What is the implementation timeline? If #1 and #2 are true (which is my contention), *then* the specific details can be ironed out about how and when. Ideally, if it is desirable and achievable, it might be prudent to wait to start the "rolling backwards compatibility guarantee" era as part of the new versioning scheme rollout, rather than updating the versioning scheme post-hoc to reflect the new status quo.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
