Hi Jim. Fair enough. This gives me better sense of the picture. In a
year or two from now I would not be surprised to see jython at 2.5 which
could be interesting for the python frameworks. It also has a plan to
evolve to P3K as well. All python projects will get there regardless. I
am certain
On Sep 11, 2007, at 10:28 AM, David Pratt wrote:
I was hoping Jim might respond to this thread since I am certain
there is concern about what this means for the future of Zope. I am
hoping that core communities of python framework developers may
come together on what is in their best inter
Hi Martijn. Yes, it needs thinking and action since it will take months
to communicate, assess, and to pull this together in a cohesive way. I
see the need for a key board member to be accountable to the Foundation
for this effort. It is really a matter of oversight and to ensure this
gets done
Hey,
Thanks for the write-up. This needs some thinking. I will bring this up
on the board, too.
As a general point: the foundation board is happy to appoint someone as
its official representative in this and back them up where needed, but I
think it's unlikely at this point we'll be having a
Hi Martijn. I think a tool to assess the impact on each project is
necessary. A risk assessment of some type could realistically quantify,
identify imported code, estimate of the size of the community depending
upon the sources, provide rough conversion estimates, and also identify
alternatives
Paul Winkler wrote:
On Tue, Sep 11, 2007 at 12:49:23AM -0400, Paul Winkler wrote:
On Sun, Sep 09, 2007 at 05:39:45PM +0100, Martin Aspeli wrote:
Has there been a strong statement that there won't be a Python 2.7 and
beyond? Will Python 2.x be actively killed off?
Quite the opposite, Guido prop
Hey,
David Pratt wrote:
[snip]
Communication with the core python team on impacts could create a
cohesive strategy for the future and improve buy-in if there can be
agreement on how to move forward.
While I fully agree, my one (accidentally started) communication with
the core Python team o
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Martin Aspeli wrote:
Paul Winkler wrote:
On Sun, Sep 09, 2007 at 05:39:45PM +0100, Martin Aspeli wrote:
Has there been a strong statement that there won't be a Python 2.7
and beyond? Will Python 2.x be actively killed off?
Quite the opposite, Guido proposed last year t
On Tue, Sep 11, 2007 at 12:49:23AM -0400, Paul Winkler wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 09, 2007 at 05:39:45PM +0100, Martin Aspeli wrote:
> > Has there been a strong statement that there won't be a Python 2.7 and
> > beyond? Will Python 2.x be actively killed off?
>
> Quite the opposite, Guido proposed last
David Pratt skrev:
Hi Reinoud. I started the thread since I am concerned there could be a
real threat to zope that I work with. I have not seen anything on the
python list in general but I was happy to see the blog article from
Twisted to get some perspective from Glyph. Without an effort to as
Hi Reinoud. I started the thread since I am concerned there could be a
real threat to zope that I work with. I have not seen anything on the
python list in general but I was happy to see the blog article from
Twisted to get some perspective from Glyph. Without an effort to assess
and plan with
Reinoud van Leeuwen wrote:
On Tue, Sep 11, 2007 at 10:29:58AM +0200, Martijn Faassen wrote:
Paul Winkler wrote:
On Sun, Sep 09, 2007 at 05:39:45PM +0100, Martin Aspeli wrote:
Has there been a strong statement that there won't be a Python 2.7 and
beyond? Will Python 2.x be actively killed off?
On Tue, Sep 11, 2007 at 10:29:58AM +0200, Martijn Faassen wrote:
> Paul Winkler wrote:
> >On Sun, Sep 09, 2007 at 05:39:45PM +0100, Martin Aspeli wrote:
> >>Has there been a strong statement that there won't be a Python 2.7 and
> >>beyond? Will Python 2.x be actively killed off?
> >
> >Quite the o
Paul Winkler wrote:
On Sun, Sep 09, 2007 at 05:39:45PM +0100, Martin Aspeli wrote:
Has there been a strong statement that there won't be a Python 2.7 and
beyond? Will Python 2.x be actively killed off?
Quite the opposite, Guido proposed last year to do 2.7, 2.8, and 2.9.
After that it's not cl
Martin Aspeli wrote:
Paul Winkler wrote:
On Sun, Sep 09, 2007 at 05:39:45PM +0100, Martin Aspeli wrote:
Has there been a strong statement that there won't be a Python 2.7
and beyond? Will Python 2.x be actively killed off?
Quite the opposite, Guido proposed last year to do 2.7, 2.8, and 2.9.
Martin Aspeli wrote:
Lennart Regebro wrote:
I'm hoping that Guido will see the errors of his ways, and introduce a
Python 2.7 that has more forwards compatibility than what has been
promised for 2.6, so that there can be a useable overlap between
Python 2.7 and 3.0. Maybe a 3.1 with some more b
Paul Winkler wrote:
On Sun, Sep 09, 2007 at 05:39:45PM +0100, Martin Aspeli wrote:
Has there been a strong statement that there won't be a Python 2.7 and
beyond? Will Python 2.x be actively killed off?
Quite the opposite, Guido proposed last year to do 2.7, 2.8, and 2.9.
After that it's not cl
On Sun, Sep 09, 2007 at 05:39:45PM +0100, Martin Aspeli wrote:
> Has there been a strong statement that there won't be a Python 2.7 and
> beyond? Will Python 2.x be actively killed off?
Quite the opposite, Guido proposed last year to do 2.7, 2.8, and 2.9.
After that it's not clear to me.
> In th
Lennart Regebro wrote:
I'm hoping that Guido will see the errors of his ways, and introduce a
Python 2.7 that has more forwards compatibility than what has been
promised for 2.6, so that there can be a useable overlap between
Python 2.7 and 3.0. Maybe a 3.1 with some more backwards compatibility
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Lennart Regebro wrote:
> A bit late post, but here is my thoughts on the subject.
>
> As it looks right now, It will be virtually impossible to write code
> that works under both Python 3.0 and Python 2.x. This has a huge
> impact on Zope, because Zop
Hermann Himmelbauer wrote:
Am Sonntag, 2. September 2007 08:18 schrieb Andreas Jung:
--On 1. September 2007 16:21:23 -0400 Stephan Richter
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Saturday 01 September 2007 15:33, Martijn Faassen wrote:
I think Zope will be on Python 2.x for many years to come.
I reall
Hi,
Tres Seaver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Did you note which language features you reviewed, and
> what your thoughts were, in the code or online somewhere? That will
> make it easier for those of us who have worked security analysis a bunch.
I will try to document this on a Wiki page under
Tres Seaver wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
The ExtensionClass changes are not done,
and I think there are other C-level changes which have not
It was never said whether Zope 2 would be part of the GSoC proj
Tres Seaver wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
The ExtensionClass changes are not done,
and I think there are other C-level changes which have not
It was never said whether Zope 2 would be part of the GSoC proj
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
> Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
>>> The ExtensionClass changes are not done,
>>> and I think there are other C-level changes which have not
>> It was never said whether Zope 2 would be part of the GSoC project or
>>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
nikhil wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> Philipp von Weitershausen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> He ported the Zope 3 libraries (zope.*). He also worked on the ZODB ina
>> a branch, but I see no sign of its merging. When compiling the ZODB with
>> Python 2.5, I still
Hey,
On 9/3/07, Hermann Himmelbauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Am Montag, 3. September 2007 13:25 schrieb Martijn Faassen:
[snip]
> Well, I personally don't have good experiences with automatic code conversion
> tools. Most often I had to manually edit the source. It may work in simple
> cases w
Am Montag, 3. September 2007 13:25 schrieb Martijn Faassen:
> Hermann Himmelbauer wrote:
> > Am Samstag, 1. September 2007 13:11 schrieb Andreas Jung:
> >> --On 1. September 2007 16:33:58 +0530 Baiju M <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>> Andreas Jung wrote:
> --On 1. September 2007 16:00:19 +053
nikhil wrote:
> Especially the difficult part, the untrusted code stuff in Zope 2,
> hasn't been tackled at all.
At present the tests are passing for RestrictedPython( for Zope2
also). Also I have been analyzing the new language features added and
is trying to add new tests for checking this.
Hi,
>Philipp von Weitershausen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>He ported the Zope 3 libraries (zope.*). He also worked on the ZODB ina
>a branch, but I see no sign of its merging. When compiling the ZODB with
>Python 2.5, I still get loads of compiler warnings.
I started working in ZODB initially. Bu
David Pratt wrote:
Yes these are all fairly painful scenarios. What's worse is the scenario
for organizations evaluating zope end user software using python 2. It's
will not be a great selling feature to start with the premise that
anything you see today will require major refactoring to give p
Hey,
Tres Seaver wrote:
[snip]
Frankly, I'm uninterested in spending *any* effort on Py3K support:
we'd be more likely to get traction out of Jython / IronPython (which
are alreday stable, and run on platforms we don't yet support).
More far-fetched but still in some ways more in reach than Py
Hermann Himmelbauer wrote:
Am Samstag, 1. September 2007 13:11 schrieb Andreas Jung:
--On 1. September 2007 16:33:58 +0530 Baiju M <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Andreas Jung wrote:
--On 1. September 2007 16:00:19 +0530 Baiju M <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
I currently don't see how a smooth tran
Hermann Himmelbauer skrev:
I personally don't see this so dramatically, especially because many things
are still unclear in Python 3 and because of the long timescale.
Ahh ... then you have never been a part of maintaining a large software
project :-)
You will have older subsystems that wor
Am Sonntag, 2. September 2007 08:18 schrieb Andreas Jung:
> --On 1. September 2007 16:21:23 -0400 Stephan Richter
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Saturday 01 September 2007 15:33, Martijn Faassen wrote:
> >> I think Zope will be on Python 2.x for many years to come.
> >
> > I really hope not.
Am Samstag, 1. September 2007 13:11 schrieb Andreas Jung:
> --On 1. September 2007 16:33:58 +0530 Baiju M <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Andreas Jung wrote:
> >> --On 1. September 2007 16:00:19 +0530 Baiju M <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>
> >> wrote:
> I currently don't see how a smooth transition woul
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
The ExtensionClass changes are not done,
and I think there are other C-level changes which have not
It was never said whether Zope 2 would be part of the GSoC project or
not. That said, we can't drop Python 2.4 support until
... we've made sure Zope 2 runs on
Tres Seaver wrote:
In fact Python 2.5 porting was not as much difficult as predicted in an
old thread [1].
It isn't done yet, so I'm not sure what you are talking about.
Especially the difficult part, the untrusted code stuff in Zope 2,
hasn't been tackled at all.
Nikhil has completed port
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Martijn Faassen wrote:
> Hey,
>
> David Pratt wrote:
>> Ultimately, the
>> folks that will even want to maintain a 2.x code base will quickly erode
>> since the forefront of development is never the past. Perhaps it will
>> all move more quickly f
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Baiju M wrote:
> Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
>> David Pratt wrote:
>>> Hi. I am concerned about the announcement of python 3000 today that
>>> will break backwards compatibility. Zope and twisted are my
>>> favorite frameworks. The code base for
Yes these are all fairly painful scenarios. What's worse is the scenario
for organizations evaluating zope end user software using python 2. It's
will not be a great selling feature to start with the premise that
anything you see today will require major refactoring to give provide a
measure of
Martijn Faassen wrote:
> Hey,
>
> David Pratt wrote:
>> Ultimately, the
>> folks that will even want to maintain a 2.x code base will quickly
>> erode since the forefront of development is never the past. Perhaps
>> it will all move more quickly for this reason when python 3K is out
>> for real.
--On 1. September 2007 21:40:20 +0200 Martijn Faassen
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hey,
David Pratt wrote:
Ultimately, the
folks that will even want to maintain a 2.x code base will quickly erode
since the forefront of development is never the past. Perhaps it will
all move more quickly fo
--On 1. September 2007 16:21:23 -0400 Stephan Richter
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Saturday 01 September 2007 15:33, Martijn Faassen wrote:
I think Zope will be on Python 2.x for many years to come.
I really hope not. A friend of mine and I want to get a bit involved in
Python 3000 once
Stephan Richter wrote:
On Saturday 01 September 2007 15:33, Martijn Faassen wrote:
I think Zope will be on Python 2.x for many years to come.
I really hope not. A friend of mine and I want to get a bit involved in Python
3000 once it is stable enough that the standard libs can get some attent
On Saturday 01 September 2007 15:33, Martijn Faassen wrote:
> I think Zope will be on Python 2.x for many years to come.
I really hope not. A friend of mine and I want to get a bit involved in Python
3000 once it is stable enough that the standard libs can get some attention.
At this point I rea
Hey,
But we cannot officially support Python 2.5 until Zope 2 is also ported.
(This is a policy of Zope Foundation, I guess)
Just to make it clear: the Zope Foundation itself never made a decision
on this. In general, the Zope Foundation is not making development
decisions. This was a commun
Hey,
David Pratt wrote:
Ultimately, the
folks that will even want to maintain a 2.x code base will quickly erode
since the forefront of development is never the past. Perhaps it will
all move more quickly for this reason when python 3K is out for real.
This is what I fear will happen. This
Hey,
Andreas Jung wrote:
[snip]
I am basically speaking here for the Zope 2 world. If we move core
components to Python 3000 we have to move the complete Zope 2 core to
Python 3000 which will cause a huge disaster because of almost every
third party component is likely to break. This is a big
Hey,
A few months ago I voiced concerns about Python 3000 breaking existing
codebases and fracturing the community as a result. Various people in
the community landed on me like a ton of bricks. It wasn't fun.
I think Zope will be on Python 2.x for many years to come. That will
give Zope a m
Fred Drake wrote at 2007-9-1 03:14 -0400:
>On 9/1/07, Christian Theune <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I think the byte/text change is excellent.
>
>I like the clean separation of the two. What I don't like is the
>omission of an immutable bytes type.
Where is the problem -- now that we have "pypi"
On 1 Sep 2007, at 19:39 , Stephan Richter wrote:
On Friday 31 August 2007 23:35, Fred Drake wrote:
A biggie is going to be the replacement of immutable str for binary
data; that gets replaced with a mutable bytes object. It'll be good
to have, but the loss of an immutable sequence-of-bytes type
On Friday 31 August 2007 23:35, Fred Drake wrote:
> A biggie is going to be the replacement of immutable str for binary
> data; that gets replaced with a mutable bytes object. It'll be good
> to have, but the loss of an immutable sequence-of-bytes type seems
> like a problem to me.
Oh, I did not
Hi Andreas. Yes, this is where my thoughts were going with this in the
short and medium term. If you extrapolate this to not only zope, but to
other folks that depend upon zope's code base, and to the code zope
depends upon, this is not a good scenario. I am thinking about twisted,
lxml, and ma
--On 1. September 2007 16:33:58 +0530 Baiju M <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Andreas Jung wrote:
--On 1. September 2007 16:00:19 +0530 Baiju M <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> May be we can try Python 3.0 porting in next GSoC ? :)
>
-1 on that. I am pretty sure that this will lead to two differen
Andreas Jung wrote:
--On 1. September 2007 16:00:19 +0530 Baiju M <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> May be we can try Python 3.0 porting in next GSoC ? :)
>
-1 on that. I am pretty sure that this will lead to two different
codebases which are hard to maintain over long period of time. We
should
--On 1. September 2007 16:00:19 +0530 Baiju M <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
May be we can try Python 3.0 porting in next GSoC ? :)
-1 on that. I am pretty sure that this will lead to two different codebases
which are hard to maintain over long period of time. We should stick with
Python 2.X
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
David Pratt wrote:
> Hi. I am concerned about the announcement of python 3000 today that
> will break backwards compatibility. Zope and twisted are my
> favorite frameworks. The code base for both frameworks are not
> small. I haven't evaluated the changes but I
On 9/1/07, Christian Theune <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think the byte/text change is excellent.
I like the clean separation of the two. What I don't like is the
omission of an immutable bytes type.
-Fred
--
Fred L. Drake, Jr.
"Chaos is the score upon which reality is written." --Hen
Am Freitag, den 31.08.2007, 23:35 -0400 schrieb Fred Drake:
> On 8/31/07, Stephan Richter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > That's is what I am most worried about. I really need to look into this to
> > see
> > how much things changed. Maybe not as much as we tend to think.
>
> I think the changes w
On 8/31/07, Stephan Richter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That's is what I am most worried about. I really need to look into this to see
> how much things changed. Maybe not as much as we tend to think.
I think the changes will be substantial, both for Python code and for
C extensions.
A biggie is
On Friday 31 August 2007 20:16, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
> C extensions, anyone?
That's is what I am most worried about. I really need to look into this to see
how much things changed. Maybe not as much as we tend to think.
Regards,
Stephan
--
Stephan Richter
CBU Physics & Chemistry (B.
David Pratt wrote:
Hi. I am concerned about the announcement of python 3000 today that will
break backwards compatibility. Zope and twisted are my favorite
frameworks. The code base for both frameworks are not small. I haven't
evaluated the changes but I can say this is a not great day for the
63 matches
Mail list logo
