On 01/08/2014 01:46 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 11:36 PM, Martijn Faassen <faas...@startifact.com> wrote:
Well, in the original article I argue that it may be risky for the Python
community to leave the large 2.7 projects behind because they tend to be the
ones that pay us in the end.
I also argue that for those projects to move anywhere, they need a clear,
blessed, official, as simple as possible, incremental upgrade path. That's
why I argue for a Python 2.8.
Pointing out the 'future' module is existence proof that further incremental
steps could be taken on top of what Python 2.7 already does.
Yep, but suppose it were simply that the future module is blessed as
the official, simple, incremental upgrade path. That doesn't violate
PEP 404, it allows the future module to continue to be expanded
without worrying about the PSF's schedules (more stuff might be added
to it in response to Python 3.5, but this is all in the hands of
future's maintainer), and it should be relatively simple to produce an
installer that goes and grabs it.
That would be better than nothing, but would break the: "upgrade path
should be totally obvious" guideline. Also the core developers are
generally not in the habit of blessing external projects except by
taking them into the stdlib, so that'd be a first.
As Mark Rosewater is fond of saying, restrictions breed creativity.
Can the porting community take the PEP 404 restriction and be creative
within it? I suspect it'll go a long way.
How many actively maintained applications on Python 2.7 are being
ported? Do we know? If not many, is this a problem? As problems also
breed creativity.
Regards,
Martijn
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
