On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 10:31 AM, Christian Heimes <christ...@python.org>wrote:
> Am 21.11.2013 16:12, schrieb Barry Warsaw: > > On Nov 21, 2013, at 02:16 PM, Kristján Valur Jónsson wrote: > > > >> Oh, this is the misunderstanding. No one is trying to get permission > for > >> "CPython 2.8", only "Stackless Python 2.8". > > > > I think this is a very bad idea. We've worked hard to send the message > that > > the migration path is to Python 3 and while I understand that many people > > don't want to or cannot switch to Python 3, backpeddling on this message > from > > the Python community will be bad PR and open the floodgates for pressure > to > > continue the Python 2 lineage. > > > > Stackless can of course do whatever it wants, but I would strongly > oppose the > > use of the word "Python" in that. I don't want to be antagonistic, but I > > think the PSF should also oppose allowing the use of the trademark for > > any association with an unofficial 2.8. > > Yes, please don't use a name that contains both the strings "Python" and > "2.8". It's going to create lots and lots of confusion. I strongly urge > you to call it "Stackless 2.8" or something similar. > Agreed. PyPy has their own version number so there is precedent of keeping a version number that is not directly tied to the version of Python that one is compatible with. If you're really worried about confusion then go the OS X route and call it "Stackless 10" and start way up the version number chain where there is no possible clash for several decades. =)
_______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
