On Jun 6, 2014, at 3:09 PM, Brian Curtin <br...@python.org> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 11:08 PM, Donald Stufft <don...@stufft.io> wrote: >> >> On Jun 6, 2014, at 3:04 PM, Brian Curtin <br...@python.org> wrote: >> >>> On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 10:56 PM, <dw+python-...@hmmz.org> wrote: >>>> On Fri, Jun 06, 2014 at 10:49:24PM +0400, Brian Curtin wrote: >>>> >>>>> None of the options are particularly good, but yes, I think that's an >>>>> option we have to consider. We're supporting 2.7.x for 6 more years on >>>>> a compiler that is already 6 years old. >>>> >>>> Surely that is infinitely less desirable than simply bumping the minor >>>> version? >>> >>> It's definitely not desirable, but "simply" bumping the minor version >>> is not A Thing. >> >> Why? I mean even if it’s the same thing as 2.7 just with an updated >> compiler that seems like a better answer than having to deal with >> 2.7.whatever suddenly breaking all C exts. > > Because then we have to maintain 2.8 at a time when no one even wants > to maintain 2.7?
Is it really any difference in maintenance if you just stop applying updates to 2.7 and switch to 2.8? If 2.8 is really just 2.7 with a new compiler then there should be no functional difference between doing that and doing a 2.7.whatever except all of the tooling that relies on the compiler not to change in micro releases won’t suddenly break and freak out. ----------------- Donald Stufft PGP: 0x6E3CBCE93372DCFA // 7C6B 7C5D 5E2B 6356 A926 F04F 6E3C BCE9 3372 DCFA
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ 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
