On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 16:26, James Y Knight <f...@fuhm.net> wrote: > > On Nov 2, 2009, at 6:24 PM, sstein...@gmail.com wrote: > >> +1 on 2.7 being the last of the 2.x series. Enough already! > > -1. (not that it matters) > >> I, personally, haven't even written my first line of 3.x code, nor have I >> had any good reason to. > > Me neither. > >> If I saw the actual end of the line at 2.7, I would actually start looking >> for 3.x versions of my favorite tools and would be much more inclined to >> help push them along ASAP. > > I'd probably keep using 2.7 to be able to keep using those tools, instead. > >> Right now, so much that I use on a daily basis doesn't even have a 3.x >> roadmap, much less any sort of working implementation, that I don't see >> switching to 3.x ever unless the 2.x line ends, and soon! > > > I don't see switching to 3.x anytime soon either. But what's the rush? > > 2.x seems to be a fine edition of Python, why not let it keep going to 2.8 > and beyond? Then you wouldn't have to switch to 3.x at all, and that'd save > you a ton of work. (and save all the people you will have to convince to > make a 3.x roadmap and do the port a ton of work too!) > > It really sounds like you're saying that switching to 3.x isn't worth the > cost to you, but you want to force people (including yourself) to do so > anyways, because ...?
... I think a decent number of us no longer want to maintain the 2.x series. Honestly, if we go past 2.7 I am simply going to stop backporting features and bug fixes. It's just too much work keeping so many branches fixed. -Brett _______________________________________________ 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
