-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Jesse Noller wrote: > On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 12:28 PM, R. David Murray <rdmur...@bitdance.com> > wrote: >> 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. Löwis 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 > > I know it wasn't a hard and fast rule; also, with 3to2 already being > worked on, the barrier of maintenance and back porting is going to be > lowered.
My understanding from the summit is that the only point in a 2.7 release at all is to lower the "speed bumps" which make porting from 2.x to 3.x hard for large codebases. In this case, having a consistent spelling for namespace packages between 2.7 and 3.1 would incent those applications / frameworks / libraries to move to 2.7, and therefore ease getting them to 3.1. Tres. - -- =================================================================== Tres Seaver +1 540-429-0999 tsea...@palladion.com Palladion Software "Excellence by Design" http://palladion.com -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFJ2jaR+gerLs4ltQ4RAsi1AJ0cJyKsoP5SlOcBlnzLr6MB11ZoNwCg1Kil 4O2M0sZG+jH12s22p2AmXWk= =DLRM -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ 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
