I like the idea too. Thanks Sameer for bringing it up.
On Jan 24, 2018 9:39 PM, "Sameer Verma" wrote:
> Thanks, Dave! I haven't forgotten your persistence :-)
>
> I really appreciate your continued interest. In fact, I may need your
> assistance at some point, once we have a healthy set of respo
Thanks, Dave! I haven't forgotten your persistence :-)
I really appreciate your continued interest. In fact, I may need your
assistance at some point, once we have a healthy set of responses.
Stay tuned.
Sameer
--
Sameer Verma, Ph.D.
Professor, Information Systems
San Francisco State University
On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 8:28 AM, Alex Perez wrote:
> Sameer,
>
> Apologies for top-posting.
>
> For 2018, I would really like to see Sugar Labs get behind and commit to
> getting the core of Sugar working fully with Python 3. I personally believe
> this is critical to its long(er) term success, as
Hi
I agree with the general idea - this is going to only become more painful
the longer it is left undone, and if not done, will mean the end of the
python codebase. That might be acceptable, given the maturation of
Sugarizer.
Perhaps its worth having the Sugar core and toolkit part (vs the Sugar
This is great! Thank you Sameer!
I recently began updating the ideas I drafted a few years ago with Samson.
Please let us know where to submit the ideas when you are ready :D
On 11 January 2018 at 17:21, Sameer Verma wrote:
> Greetings!
>
> Here is a proposal to solicit various goals towards mi
Sameer,
Apologies for top-posting.
For 2018, I would really like to see Sugar Labs get behind and commit to
getting the core of Sugar working fully with Python 3. I personally
believe this is critical to its long(er) term success, as Python 2
continues be deprecated. Python 2 will not be supp
