On Mon, 6 Apr 2009 at 12:00, Jesse Noller wrote:
On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 9:26 AM, Barry Warsaw <ba...@python.org> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Apr 6, 2009, at 9:21 AM, Jesse Noller wrote:
On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 4:33 PM, M.-A. Lemburg <m...@egenix.com> wrote:
On 2009-04-02 17:32, Martin v. L?wis wrote:
I propose the following PEP for inclusion to Python 3.1.
Thanks for picking this up.
I'd like to extend the proposal to Python 2.7 and later.
-1 to adding it to the 2.x series. There was much discussion around
adding features to 2.x *and* 3.0, and the consensus seemed to *not*
add new features to 2.x and use those new features as carrots to help
lead people into 3.0.
Actually, isn't the policy just that nothing can go into 2.7 that isn't
backported from 3.1? ?Whether the actual backport happens or not is up to
the developer though. ?OTOH, we talked about a lot of things and my
recollection is probably fuzzy.
Barry
That *is* the official policy, but there was discussions around no
further backporting of features from 3.1 into 2.x, therefore providing
more of an upgrade incentive
My sense was that this wasn't proposed as a hard and fast rule, more
as a strongly suggested guideline.
And in this case, I think you could argue that the PEP is actually
fixing a bug in the current namespace packaging system.
Some projects, especially the large ones where this matters most, are
going to have to maintain backward compatibility for 2.x for a long time
even as 3.x adoption accelerates. It seems a shame to require packagers
to continue to deal with the problems caused by the current system even
after all the platforms have made it to 2.7+.
--David
_______________________________________________
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
