Terry Reedy wrote: >>> As for the actual feature, I don't think it should hold up releases. >> >> Fair enough. > > Given that the purpose of 2.7 is > a) maintenance of existing code (which can include minor new features > for existing facilities), and > b) easing conversion of code to 3.1 > I am puzzled at the idea of adding a new facility to 2.7 that would not > be in 3.1+. It would lock code into 2.7+ and counter purpose b).
It's possible we will end up in a situation where 3.0 and 3.1 are both aligned with 2.6, while 2.7 aligns with 3.2. That's particularly so with only 6 months or so between 3.0 and 3.1, while I currently expect the gap between 2.6 and 2.7 to be closer to the traditional 18 months. Of course, it will depend on how the relative timing of the releases plays out in practice :) Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia --------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ 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
