On 29 Oct, 09:14 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Will 3.1 and 2.7 also be parallel releases? (I ask, not having read
the 3xxx PEPS at all.)
If yes, why? While I can see a case for 2.6/3.0 being in sync -- new
features in 2.6 ease the transition to 3.0 -- I'd imagine that 3.1
would be better with a shorter cycle (6-9 months) because there are
more possible rough edges to clean up. 3.1 would likely include
bugfixes from the eventual 2.7, so 3.1 might also trigger 2.6.1, but I
don't think there's any harm if 3.1 contains features or incompatible
fixes that are unavailable to 2.x users.
2.7 is where a new version of 2to3 will be distributed. As people
actually start trying to migrate real-world code, lots of issues are
inevitably going to be discovered there. From my perspective, 2.7 and
3.1 need to be synced because 2.7 is the tool that will actually enable
users of existing code to *use* 3.1.
And this isn't just about a release of the 2to3 tool itself, but fixes
in the 2.x backports of various stdlib features to deal with the kinds
of parity issues that users are only going to discover in large-scale,
real-world testing.
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
