On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 7:11 AM, mar...@v.loewis.de wrote:
Quoting Benjamin Peterson benja...@python.org:
This means we need to talk about how many more 2.7 releases there are
going to be. At the release of 2.7.0, I thought we promised 5 years of
bugfix maintenance, but my memory may be
On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 7:11 AM, mar...@v.loewis.de wrote:
Wrt. to the 3.x migration rate: I think this is a self-fulfilling
prophecy. Migration rate will certainly increase once we announce
an end of 2.7, and then again when the end is actually reached.
Well... People are in general *stuck*
Martin, you guys are shooting yourself in a foot. Almost noone uses
python 3 in production, even at pycon, which is the more progressive
crowd. There is a giant group of people using python that are not as
vocal. While I bet some are using Python 3, Python 2 is incredibly
popular for the long
On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 9:44 AM, mar...@v.loewis.de wrote:
Martin, you guys are shooting yourself in a foot. Almost noone uses
python 3 in production, even at pycon, which is the more progressive
crowd. There is a giant group of people using python that are not as
vocal. While I bet some are
Quoting Lennart Regebro rege...@gmail.com:
On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 7:11 AM, mar...@v.loewis.de wrote:
Wrt. to the 3.x migration rate: I think this is a self-fulfilling
prophecy. Migration rate will certainly increase once we announce
an end of 2.7, and then again when the end is actually
Maciej Fijalkowski, 07.04.2013 09:52:
As far as I remember python 3 was supposed to be a better language,
not just the maintained version. It's such a bad idea to force
people to go through porting because 2.x is not maintained any more.
If they never migrate on the premises of python 3 being
On 07/04/13 17:44, mar...@v.loewis.de wrote:
Martin, you guys are shooting yourself in a foot. Almost noone uses
python 3 in production, even at pycon, which is the more progressive
crowd. There is a giant group of people using python that are not as
vocal. While I bet some are using Python 3,
On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 9:51 AM, mar...@v.loewis.de wrote:
Quoting Lennart Regebro rege...@gmail.com:
Well... People are in general *stuck* on Python 2. They are not
staying because they want to. So I'm not so sure migration rate will
increase because an end is announced or reached.
I assume
On 07/04/13 17:52, Maciej Fijalkowski wrote:
If they never migrate on the premises of python 3 being a better
language what does it say about python 3?
Very little. People stick with languages for all sorts of reasons,
including:
- It's what I know
- I don't like change
- That's what the
On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 9:51 AM, mar...@v.loewis.de wrote:
Quoting Lennart Regebro rege...@gmail.com:
On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 7:11 AM, mar...@v.loewis.de wrote:
Wrt. to the 3.x migration rate: I think this is a self-fulfilling
prophecy. Migration rate will certainly increase once we
On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 10:10 AM, Lennart Regebro rege...@gmail.com wrote:
That's the hangup IMO. Ending Python 2.7 will make no difference there
either good or bad, I think. We need to find other ways of improving
adoption.
And to be clear: I am therefore not arguing *not* to end it. I just
I just pushed two modifications to PEP 1, both triggered by the
in-progress packaging PEP updates (see diff at
http://hg.python.org/peps/rev/0a8e456973ed).
The first change is the one I raised at the language summit, allowing
pronouncement on PEPs that don't immediately affect the language
Maciej Fijalkowski, 07.04.2013 10:12:
On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 9:51 AM, martin...@v.loewis.de wrote:
Quoting Lennart Regebro:
On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 7:11 AM, martin...@v.loewis.de wrote:
Wrt. to the 3.x migration rate: I think this is a self-fulfilling
prophecy. Migration rate will certainly
On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 10:32 AM, Stefan Behnel stefan...@behnel.de wrote:
Maciej Fijalkowski, 07.04.2013 10:12:
On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 9:51 AM, martin...@v.loewis.de wrote:
Quoting Lennart Regebro:
On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 7:11 AM, martin...@v.loewis.de wrote:
Wrt. to the 3.x migration rate:
Maciej Fijalkowski, 07.04.2013 10:37:
On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 10:32 AM, Stefan Behnel wrote:
Maciej Fijalkowski, 07.04.2013 10:12:
On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 9:51 AM, martin...@v.loewis.de wrote:
Quoting Lennart Regebro:
On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 7:11 AM, martin...@v.loewis.de wrote:
Wrt. to the
On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 10:42 AM, Stefan Behnel stefan...@behnel.de wrote:
Maciej Fijalkowski, 07.04.2013 10:37:
On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 10:32 AM, Stefan Behnel wrote:
Maciej Fijalkowski, 07.04.2013 10:12:
On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 9:51 AM, martin...@v.loewis.de wrote:
Quoting Lennart Regebro:
Maciej Fijalkowski, 07.04.2013 10:45:
On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 10:42 AM, Stefan Behnel wrote:
Maciej Fijalkowski, 07.04.2013 10:37:
On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 10:32 AM, Stefan Behnel wrote:
Maciej Fijalkowski, 07.04.2013 10:12:
On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 9:51 AM, martin...@v.loewis.de wrote:
Quoting
On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 6:01 PM, Steven D'Aprano st...@pearwood.info wrote:
Or, if they have paid support from a vendor like Red Hat, hassle the vendor
for a fix. Speaking of 2.3, as I understand it Red Hat still offer paid
support for 2.3, which won't expire for a few more years, and security
I think the question average python users have is What's in it for me?.
While the guts have undergone lots of changes, from the outside it is mostly
perceived as the unicode-by-default and the print function. As per Bret's talk
at pycon [1], speed is roughly the same, which is great, considering
On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 9:13 AM, Maciej Fijalkowski fij...@gmail.com wrote:
For what is worth, we'll maintain the stdlib part of 2.7 past 2 years.
You mean 2 years beyond 2015 (assuming that will be end-of-bugfix date)?
PS: I only noticed you were talking about PyPy because I recognized
your
Am 07.04.13 00:37, schrieb Benjamin Peterson:
What I like about 6 months is that its short enough, so we don't have
feel bad about not taking a certain change; it can just be pushed to
the next no-too-far-away release. A year is quite a while to wait for
a fix to be released. It's also a nice
Am 07.04.13 11:46, schrieb Tshepang Lekhonkhobe:
On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 9:13 AM, Maciej Fijalkowski fij...@gmail.com wrote:
For what is worth, we'll maintain the stdlib part of 2.7 past 2 years.
You mean 2 years beyond 2015 (assuming that will be end-of-bugfix date)?
No, I think he means
I started writing this last night before the flurry of messages which
arrived overnight. I thought originally, Oh, Skip, you're being too
harsh. But now I'm not so sure. I think you are approaching the
issue of 2.7's EOL incorrectly. Of those discussing the end of Python
2.7, how many of you
2013/4/7 Martin v. Löwis mar...@v.loewis.de:
Am 07.04.13 00:37, schrieb Benjamin Peterson:
What I like about 6 months is that its short enough, so we don't have
feel bad about not taking a certain change; it can just be pushed to
the next no-too-far-away release. A year is quite a while to
2013/4/7 Skip Montanaro s...@pobox.com:
I started writing this last night before the flurry of messages which
arrived overnight. I thought originally, Oh, Skip, you're being too
harsh. But now I'm not so sure. I think you are approaching the
issue of 2.7's EOL incorrectly. Of those
On 07.04.13 03:54, Raymond Hettinger wrote:
On Apr 6, 2013, at 2:02 PM, Benjamin Peterson benja...@python.org
mailto:benja...@python.org wrote:
we need to talk about how many more 2.7 releases there are
going to be. At the release of 2.7.0, I thought we promised 5 years of
bugfix
Hi Skip,
On 07.04.13 14:10, Skip Montanaro wrote:
I started writing this last night before the flurry of messages which
arrived overnight. I thought originally, Oh, Skip, you're being too
harsh. But now I'm not so sure. I think you are approaching the
issue of 2.7's EOL incorrectly. Of those
On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 6:53 AM, Christian Tismer tis...@stackless.comwrote:
Hi Skip,
On 07.04.13 14:10, Skip Montanaro wrote:
I started writing this last night before the flurry of messages which
arrived overnight. I thought originally, Oh, Skip, you're being too
harsh. But now I'm not
Am 07.04.2013 14:10, schrieb Skip Montanaro:
I started writing this last night before the flurry of messages which
arrived overnight. I thought originally, Oh, Skip, you're being too
harsh. But now I'm not so sure. I think you are approaching the
issue of 2.7's EOL incorrectly. Of those
Skip Montanaro writes:
It sounds like many people at PyCon are still 2.x users.
I suspect we're all still 2.x users at some level.
But the question is not where are the users? It's where do the
development resources come from? Pretty clearly, the python-dev
crowd has voted with their
On Mon, 08 Apr 2013 00:25:12 +0900, Stephen J. Turnbull step...@xemacs.org
wrote:
2.x's EOL was discussed in the past (the thread about why no 2.8?),
and what we observe is nobody coming forward to maintain Python 2 for
the fun of it. People not only work on Python 3 for the fun of it,
but
Am 07.04.13 16:58, schrieb Gregory P. Smith:
We don't need to close the 2.7 branch to commits and bug fixes. Ever.
I wouldn't want this to happen, actually. People making changes to the
2.7 branch will want to see them released some day. The expectation is
on the release people to actually make
Christian Tismer, 07.04.2013 15:53:
But I think every employee (including you) can quite easily put some pressure
on his company by claiming that Python 2.x is a dead end, and everybody is
about to move on to 3.x.
This does not have to be true, I just recognize that by claiming it and
doing
I have spent many years in industry working for large companies that
have big, successful internal Python code bases, with dependencies on
large numbers of external packages. From talking about colleagues
about migrating to new language versions, several issues come forward.
They all conspire to
On Sun, 07 Apr 2013 11:48:28 -0400, R. David Murray rdmur...@bitdance.com
wrote:
(much more if the fix doesn't apply cleanly), and I find myself more and
more likely to say well, it's been that way in Python2 for a long while,
fixing it there is more likely to break things than it is to
But perhaps we could change the focus for 2.7 development a bit:
instead of fixing bugs (or bickering about whether something is a bug
fix or a new feature) we could limit changes to ensuring that it works
on newer platforms. Martin mentioned that building 2.7 for Windows
with the same
On Apr 06, 2013, at 05:02 PM, Benjamin Peterson wrote:
This means we need to talk about how many more 2.7 releases there are
going to be.
I'm all for putting stakes in the ground and clearly describing the future
life of Python 2.7, rather than the current indefinite status quo. We talked
about
On Apr 06, 2013, at 06:54 PM, Raymond Hettinger wrote:
At this year's Pycon keynote, I surveyed the crowd (approx 2500 people)
and all almost everyone indicated that they had tried out Python 3.x
and almost no one was using it in production or writing code for it.
That indicates that Python 2.7
On 08/04/13 07:41, Barry Warsaw wrote:
I talked to someone at Pycon who was still using Python 1.5, which is probably
older than some of the people on this list ;).
Awesome! :-)
--
Steven
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
Barry Warsaw writes:
I would like to make a definitive statement as to 2.7's EOL because
I think that will spur more people to work on porting.
I have to agree with the people who say that it's not a major spur.
Internal support for existing Python 2.7 installations is by now quite
a bit
On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 12:58 AM, Gregory P. Smith g...@krypto.org wrote:
You're not looking at it from the users perspective. They see:
we are pleased to announce that RHEL 4 will be supported until the year
3325
and continue to use everything that it ships with and only that. its their
On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 1:26 AM, Stefan Behnel stefan...@behnel.de wrote:
Brett Cannon, 02.04.2013 19:28:
On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 1:20 PM, Steve Dower steve.do...@microsoft.comwrote:
python -m pyzaa pack [-o path/name] [-m module.submodule:callable] [-c]
[-w] [-p interpreter] directory:
42 matches
Mail list logo
