On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 10:57 AM, Steve Holden <st...@holdenweb.com> wrote: > Guido van Rossum wrote: > [...] >> >> Finally, to those who claim that 2.6 is a mess because multiprocessing >> wasn't perfectly stable at introduction: that's never been the >> standard we've used for totally *new* features. It's always been okay >> to add slightly immature features at a major release, as long as (a) >> they don't break anything else, and (b) we can fix things in the next >> release while maintaining backward compatibility. >> > There's a large distance between saying its introduction was ill-advised > and that 2.6 is a mess. I certainly never intimated such a thing (I said > it was "a rushed release"). Did anyone?
I don't think that 2.6 as a whole counts as a rushed release, despite the inclusion of multiprocessing. And I don't think it was ill-advised either. > Of course we can fix it. Of course 2.6 is great. -- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) _______________________________________________ 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
