Ah. I'm glad I brought it up.
When the time comes to port my code, I'll try skipping step 1 first.
--
Daryl
On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 5:48 PM, Martin v. Löwis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I think you misunderstand the role of 2.6. See the seven steps under
> > "The recommended
> I think you misunderstand the role of 2.6. See the seven steps under
> "The recommended development model for a project that needs to support
> Python 2.6 and 3.0 simultaneously..." in
> http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-3000/#compatibility-and-transition.
> Step 1 reads "Port your
> So this means, though, that folks running from SVN will still need to
> run setup.py every time they update, right? Not that that's a
> dealbreaker -- I think Django-on-Py3k'ers will be on the cutting edge
> anyway -- just wanna check.
Correct. distutils operates using time-stamps, so it
I think you misunderstand the role of 2.6. See the seven steps under
"The recommended development model for a project that needs to support
Python 2.6 and 3.0 simultaneously..." in
http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-3000/#compatibility-and-transition.
Step 1 reads "Port your project to Python
On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 8:07 PM, Daryl Spitzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 8:57 AM, Jacob Kaplan-Moss
> > Ahh -- this was the part I was missing; my apologies for being dense.
> > I've been thinking of 2to3 as a one-time tool -- run it to move to
> > 3.0, and never
On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 8:57 AM, Jacob Kaplan-Moss
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 5:10 PM, Martin v. Löwis
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > So leave the code as-is, and have 2to3 fix it at installation
> > time (whenever setup.py is invoked by 3.x; setup.py itself
>
On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 5:10 PM, Martin v. Löwis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So leave the code as-is, and have 2to3 fix it at installation
> time (whenever setup.py is invoked by 3.x; setup.py itself
> runs without changes on 3.x)
Ahh -- this was the part I was missing; my apologies for
On Fri, Mar 28 2008 at 11:20:52AM BRT, Peter Herndon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As Alberto said, and James and Jacob, I don't see enough value for
> Django. The key here is to define a project that results in a usable
> code contribution by the end of the summer *for the project*. Not for
>
> The specific issues I've run into so far:
>
> * Exception-catching syntax (i.e. ``except Whatever as e`` vs.
> ``except Whatever, e``).
2to3 fixes these, and transparently transforms "the except clauses.
> * Unicode literals (u'...').
Likewise, 2to3 removes the u"" prefix.
So leave the
On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 3:19 PM, Daryl Spitzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Do you maintain them side-by-side, or do you just reject patches that
> require new features introduced in 2.4 and 2.5? (I just assumed that
> you maintain 2.3 compatibility by testing on 2.3.)
Exactly. It's not like
On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 4:21 PM, Martin v. Löwis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No hurt feelings, no. However, I would find it useful if you could
> add specific reservations and doubts to that. What aspects of Django
> (that I perhaps haven't touch yet) do you consider unmaintainable
> under
> I hope you won't take it the wrong way when I say I have an extremely
> difficult time believing that.
No hurt feelings, no. However, I would find it useful if you could
add specific reservations and doubts to that. What aspects of Django
(that I perhaps haven't touch yet) do you consider
On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 3:56 PM, Martin v. Löwis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Please see my recent report: 0 years, 0 months, 0 days, 0 seconds.
> You can (probably) support Python 2.x and Python 3.x out of a single
> source tree.
I hope you won't take it the wrong way when I say I have an
> Except if Django has a Python 3.0 version, say, this fall, that means
> how many years of supporting two parallel versions of Django and
> merging features and fixes back and forth between them?
Please see my recent report: 0 years, 0 months, 0 days, 0 seconds.
You can (probably) support
Jacob writes:
> It's hard enough maintaining 2.3, 2.4, and 2.5 side-by-side...
Do you maintain them side-by-side, or do you just reject patches that
require new features introduced in 2.4 and 2.5? (I just assumed that
you maintain 2.3 compatibility by testing on 2.3.)
--
Daryl
On Thu, Mar
On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 2:35 PM, Rodrigo Bernardo Pimentel
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'd argue that Python 3.0 is not that much of a moving target either. Of
> course, such a porting project would require following development of 2to3.
Then you need to read the Py3k PEPs more closely. PEP
On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 2:30 PM, Rodrigo Bernardo Pimentel
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thanks again for your feedback, James! I'd love to hear more from other
> developers on this matter.
I have to say I agree with James on this one. SoC projects out to be
stuff that can *finished* in a
On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 2:30 PM, Rodrigo Bernardo Pimentel
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Besides, people are already experimenting with porting their code to py3k,
> so I'm getting the feeling it won't take so long for libraries to get
> ported. Requests from Django developers who are already
On Thu, Mar 27 2008 at 06:25:52AM BRT, Graham Dumpleton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Mar 27, 7:17 pm, "James Bennett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I'm still a bit worried about the fact that, aside from Django being a
> > moving target and Python 3.0 being a moving target, WSGI for Python
On Thu, Mar 27 2008 at 01:31:04AM BRT, Sage La Torra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 6:03 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I wrote him and said I had contemplated porting Django to py3k as a
> > project for the Google Summer of Code. He answered that there was
> >
20 matches
Mail list logo
