On Sat, Apr 06, 2002, Barry A. Warsaw wrote: > > From my own perspective it seems that 2.1.x is viewed as the stable > release family, and each micro release reaffirms its stability. > That's a good thing. That 2.2.x is viewed as more experimental is > simply caused by the new type/class stuff, and I don't think there's > much marketing you could do to change that perception. Maybe 2.2 > should have been called 3.0 <wink>. Hmph. Why are you winking? Between new-style classes and the division change, that's actually a sensible suggestion. How about we change "2.3" to "3.1", making 3.0 a retroactive symlink to 2.2. (Okay, so I'm mostly joking here, but I really do think there'd be fewer complaints about 2.2 if it had been billed as a major change.) -- Aahz (aahz@pythoncraft.com) <*> http://www.pythoncraft.com/ "There are times when effort is important and necessary, but this should not be taken as any kind of moral imperative." --jdecker
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4