Raymond Hettinger writes: > My preference is to *not* mark it as experimental.
Don't take the word "experimental" too seriously. It's clearly an exaggeration given the current state of 3.0.x. What is meant is an explicit announcement that the stability rules chosen in response to the bool-True-False brouhaha will be relaxed for the 3.0.x series *only*. > Instead, I prefer doing what it takes to make the 3.0.x series viable. That's not an "instead", that's two independent choices. The point is that most of the people who are voicing concerns fear precisely that policy. I think that the important question is "can the 3.0.x series be made 'viable' in less than the time frame for 3.1?" If not, I really have to think it's DOA from the point of view of folks who consider 3.0.0 non-viable. I think that's what Barry and Martin are saying. Guido is saying something different. AIUI, he's saying that explicitly introducing controlled instability into 3.0.x of the form "this is what the extremely stable non-buggy inherited-from-3.0 core of 3.1 is going to look like" will be a great service to those who consider 3.0.0 non-viable. The key point is that new features in 3.1 are generally going to be considered less reliable than those inherited from 3.0, and thus a debugged 3.0, even if the implementations have been unstable, provides a way for the very demanding to determine what that set is, and to test how it behaves in their applications. I think it's worth a try, after consultation with some of the major developers who are the ostensible beneficiaries. But if tried, I think it's important to mark 3.0.x as "not yet stable" even if the instability is carefully defined and controlled. _______________________________________________ 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
