On 27 Jan 2009, at 23:56, Barry Warsaw wrote:
Also, 3.0 is a special case because it is IMO a broken release.
AFAICT, it is not in any distro yet. Hopefully, no one will keep
it around
and it will vanish silently.
I stand by my opinion about the right way to do this. I also think
that a 3.1 release 6 months after 3.0 is perfectly fine and serves
our users just as well.
I'm lurking here, as I usually have nothing to contribute, but here's
my take on this:
<user>
I'm generally a Python 2.4 user, but have recently been able to tinker
in 2.6. I hope to be using 2.6 as my main language within a year. I
anticipate dropping all 2.4 projects within 5 years. We have not yet
dropped 2.3.
I didn't know 3.0 is considered a broken release, but teething
troubles are to be expected. Knowing this, I would be reluctant to
use 3.0.1, it sounds like too small a change. If you put a lot of
things into a minor point release you risk setting expectations about
future ones. From the 2.x series I 2.x.{y,y+1) to be seemless, but 2.
{x,x+1} to be more performant, include new features and potentially
break comlpex code.
I personally would see a 3.1 with C based IO support as being more
sensible than a 3.0.1 with lots of changes. I wouldn't worry about
3.x being seen as a dead duck, as you say it's not in wide use yet.
We trust you guys, if there's been big fixes there should be a big
version update. Broadcast what's been made better and it'll encourage
us to try it.
</user>
Matt
_______________________________________________
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
