Antoine Pitrou wrote: > Raymond Hettinger <python <at> rcn.com> writes: >> * If you're thinking that shelves have very few users and that >> 3.0.0 has had few adopters, doesn't that mitigate the effects >> of making a better format available in 3.0.1? Wouldn't this >> be the time to do it? > > There was already another proposal for an sqlite-based dbm module, you may > want to synchronize with it: > http://bugs.python.org/issue3783 > > As I see it, the problem with introducing it in 3.0.1 is that we would be > rushing in a new piece of code without much review or polish.
Again > Also, there are > only two release blockers left for 3.0.1, so we might just finish those and > release, then concentrate on 3.1. > Seems to me that every deviation from the policy introduced as a result for the True/False debacle leads to complications and problems. There's no point having a policy instigated for good reasons if we can ignore those reasons on a whim. So to my mind, ignoring the policy *is* effectively declaring 3.0 to be, well, if not a dead parrot then at least a rushed release. Most consistently missing from this picture has been effective communications (in both directions) with the user base. Consequently nobody knows whether specific features are in serious use, and nobody knows whether 3.0 is intended to be a stable base for production software or not. Ignoring users, and acting as though we know what they are doing and what they want, is not going to lead to better acceptance of future releases. regards Steve -- Steve Holden +1 571 484 6266 +1 800 494 3119 Holden Web LLC http://www.holdenweb.com/ _______________________________________________ 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
