On 7 June 2014 15:05, Donald Stufft <don...@stufft.io> wrote: > I don’t particularly care too much though, I just think that bumping > the compiler in a 2.7.Z release is a really bad idea and that either > of the other two options are massively better.
It is *incredibly* unlikely that backwards compatibility with binary extensions will be broken within the Python 2.7 series - there's a reason we said "No" when the Stackless folks were asking about it a while back. Instead, the toolchain availability problem is currently being tackled by trying to make suitable build toolchains more readily available (both the official VS 2008 toolchain and alternative open source toolchains), and by reducing the reliance on building from source for end users. Both of those courses of action are likely to bear fruit. It's only in the case where those approaches *don't* solve the problem that we'll need to come back and revisit the question of a compatibility break for binary extensions - it is, as you say, a really bad idea, and hence not something we would pursue when there are better options available (I think a Python 2.8 release would be an *even worse* idea in terms of souring our relationships with redistributors, but fortunately, those aren't our only two choices). Regards, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia _______________________________________________ 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
