2010/10/29 M.-A. Lemburg <m...@egenix.com>: > Brett Cannon wrote: >> 2010/10/28 Kristján Valur Jónsson <krist...@ccpgames.com>: >>> I'm not sure what I'm actually proposing. But I certainly wasn't thinking >>> of a new "fork" of python. And not a new version 2.8 that gets all new 3.x >>> features backported. >>> I'm more thinking of a place where usability improvements, C API >>> improvements, performance improvements, Library improvments, can go. >> >> It's called a fork. I realize you are trying to avoid that "dirty" >> word, Kristján, and I appreciate it, but you are describing a fork. >> Python 2.7 is the last sanctioned version of the Python 2.x series, >> period. Any non-bugfix changes will not go in there as policy >> dictates. And with there being no way Python 2.8 will happen (I know >> we as a group have said "slim chance" since Python 3.0 came out, >> uptake of Python 3 is such I am willing to personally say "never" for >> a python-dev sanctioned Python 2.8), that means it will take a fork, >> whether it be internal to CCP or public somewhere, it will still be a >> fork. >> >> And as everyone has said so far (and with which I agree), that's fine. >> As long as it is not called Python 2.8 -- EVE-Python 2.8 or some Monty >> Python reference -- then that's fine. > > I don't see why we should not welcome a team of new developers who want > to continue working on the 2.x series.
He's not saying we shouldn't welcome them; we just don't want to it attached to python-dev. -- Regards, Benjamin _______________________________________________ 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
