On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 3:47 AM, Tres Seaver <tsea...@palladion.com> wrote: > I think that assumption may not be warranted. If the current core folks > are focused only on developing Python 3, but others are working on a > notional 2.8, there is no necessary correlation any longer between the > two. In particular, the judgement of the current core about various > tradeoffs in the Python 2 codebase won't be as relevant as it has been, > in particular because the overarching drive (add features / warnings > etc. which ease / encourage migration to Python 3) won't be in the > forefront of the new group's perspective.
That's a fair point actually, but it would be a decision for the possible-but-not-yet-existing group to take as they formed. Given the likely divergence in design goals, it would probably be best to just bite the bullet and declare it a fork of Python 2.7 (py2x 2.8? RetroPython 2.8?). It would hardly be the first such fork - other flavours of 2.x with design goals that differ from those of python-dev certainly have a long history (Stackless, wpython, etc). There are also IP issues to consider in setting up such a group though. The PSF takes care of it for python.org, but those contributor agreements wouldn't necessarily cover a new fork. 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
