> Will many be spooked by the jump in version number into fearing
> incompatibility with older scripts...?
>
> I wonder if we'll end up trying to persuade the user community that
> the changes are small ("no, don't worry, your scripts will still
> work") and yet big ("honest, it really deserves to be called 2.0,
> it's not just a ploy") at the same time.
I see your concerns, but I think the trick is to be honest, just as Guido
was. We simply say it was bumped to V2 for the reasons of percieved
maturity, and a clear break from CNRI Python.
Both seem reasonable. I believe many people will simply wait for some form
of consensus on the newsgroup, regardless of the version number.
Personally, Im a little - umm - lets just say that I can see the irony in
the fact that I recently changed a few bits of code that were dependent on
a hard-coded "Python15.dll" to work not only with 1.6, but _all_ of the 1.x
family. I figured there was no point trying to predict the packaging
details of the 2.x family, seeing it as still some time off. Nothing like
foresight :-)
And-"foresight"-isnt-an-excuse-for-Tim-to-get-back-on-the-topic-of-his-geni
tals-<wink>-ly,
Mark.
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