Barry Warsaw writes:
> Python 21.12 anyone? :)
Well, for one thing we know that version 42 will be perfect! With
current versioning policy, it will take a loong time to get
there
Steve
--
Associate Professor Division of Policy and Planning Science
http://turnbull/sk.tsu
On 04/03/2018 01:16 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
On Apr 3, 2018, at 13:08, Brett Cannon wrote:
Are we at the PEP/language summit topic point yet in this discussion
>> since Guido has said he's not interested in changing the status quo?
>> ;) Versioning is like naming variables, so this thread coul
On Apr 3, 2018, at 13:08, Brett Cannon wrote:
> Are we at the PEP/language summit topic point yet in this discussion since
> Guido has said he's not interested in changing the status quo? ;) Versioning
> is like naming variables, so this thread could go on forever.
Yeah probably so. And if yo
On Tue, 3 Apr 2018 at 11:18 Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On Apr 3, 2018, at 05:51, Paul G wrote:
>
> > Switching to CalVer is a pretty clear sign that there is now a "rolling
> backwards compatibility window", and it allows Python to skip right over
> the mythical "Python 4" and directly to "Python 21"
On Apr 3, 2018, at 05:51, Paul G wrote:
> Switching to CalVer is a pretty clear sign that there is now a "rolling
> backwards compatibility window", and it allows Python to skip right over the
> mythical "Python 4" and directly to "Python 21". Additionally, since the
> version number will be t
On 2018-04-03 18:09, Paul G wrote:
On 04/03/2018 12:36 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
On Tue, 3 Apr 2018 at 07:39 Paul G wrote:
Paul's point is that he knows e.g. code working in 3.6.0 will work when he
upgrades to 3.6.5, and if his code is warning-free and works with all
__future__ statements i
On 04/03/2018 12:36 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Apr 2018 at 07:39 Paul G wrote:
> Paul's point is that he knows e.g. code working in 3.6.0 will work when he
> upgrades to 3.6.5, and if his code is warning-free and works with all
> __future__ statements in 3.6 that it will work fine in
I personally see no reason to change anything.
On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 9:36 AM, Brett Cannon wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 3 Apr 2018 at 07:39 Paul G wrote:
>
>> > When programs use calendar-based versioning, I'm left with no
>> > information as to whether it's breaking changes or not. In fact, it
>> > m
On Tue, 3 Apr 2018 at 07:39 Paul G wrote:
> > When programs use calendar-based versioning, I'm left with no
> > information as to whether it's breaking changes or not. In fact, it
> > might as well have no version numbers whatsoever. If I care about
> > backward compatibility, I just have to stic
On 04/03/2018 10:10 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> The reason for sticking with 3.x for a while is because of the corner
> \*nix systems have gotten stuck into regarding the "python" symlink,
> and the fact it currently still points to "python2" (if it exists at
> all). Once we've updated PEP 394 to rec
> When programs use calendar-based versioning, I'm left with no
> information as to whether it's breaking changes or not. In fact, it
> might as well have no version numbers whatsoever. If I care about
> backward compatibility, I just have to stick with the exact same
> unpatched version that I had
On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 10:51 PM, Paul G wrote:
> Breaking this off from the pickle thread because it seems unrelated:
>
> On 04/02/2018 06:57 PM, Lukasz Langa wrote:
>> I think we need to get past thinking about "Python 2" vs. "Python 3". This
>> frame of mind creates space for another mythical r
On 3 April 2018 at 23:24, Paul G wrote:
> That documentation seems like a "layman's explanation" of how semantic
> versioning works. I suspect anyone familiar with semantic versioning will
> read that and think, "Ah, yes, this is a semantic versioning scheme."
Anyone that reads the porting sect
That documentation seems like a "layman's explanation" of how semantic
versioning works. I suspect anyone familiar with semantic versioning will read
that and think, "Ah, yes, this is a semantic versioning scheme."
Regardless of the semantics (har har) of whether Python "follows strict
semanti
On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 5:51 AM, Paul G wrote:
> Maybe this has already been discussed ad nauseum, but is the idea here that
> Python will stay on Python 3.x, but also start breaking backwards
> compatibility with old versions? That would seem to be a violation of
> semantic versioning.
Python'
On 3 April 2018 at 13:51, Paul G wrote:
> Maybe this has already been discussed ad nauseum, but is the idea here that
> Python will stay on Python 3.x, but also start breaking backwards
> compatibility with old versions? That would seem to be a violation of
> semantic versioning.
Python's vers
Breaking this off from the pickle thread because it seems unrelated:
On 04/02/2018 06:57 PM, Lukasz Langa wrote:
> I think we need to get past thinking about "Python 2" vs. "Python 3". This
> frame of mind creates space for another mythical release of Python that will
> break all the compatibili
17 matches
Mail list logo
