Guido van Rossum wrote: > > ... > > I'm not proposing that it be called xmlcore for eternity, but I see a > *practical* problem with the 2.0 release: the xml-sig has a package > called 'xml' (and they've had dibs on the name for years!) which is > incompatible. We can't force them to issue a new release under a > different name. I don't want to break other people's code that > requires the xml-sig's xml package. Martin v. Loewis, Greg Stein and others think that they have a backwards-compatible solution. You can decide whether to let Martin try versus go the "xmlcore" route, or else you could delegate that decision (to someone in particular, please!). > I propose the following: > > We remove the '_xmlplus' feature. It seems better not to rely on the > xml-sig to provide upgrades to the core xml package. We're planning > 2.1, 2.2, ... releases 3-6 months apart which should be quick enough > for most upgrade needs; we can issue service packs in between if > necessary. I could live with this proposal but it isn't my decision. Are you instructing the SIG to do this? Or are you suggesting I go back to the SIG and start a discussion on it? What decision making procedure do you advocate? Who is supposed to make this decision? > *IF* (and that's still a big "if"!) the xml core support is stable > before Sept. 26, we'll keep it under the name 'xmlcore'. If it's not > stable, we remove it, but we'll consider it for 2.1. We can easily have something stable within a few days from now. In fact, all reported bugs are already fixed in patches that I will check in today. There are no hard technical issues here. -- Paul Prescod - Not encumbered by corporate consensus Simplicity does not precede complexity, but follows it. - http://www.cs.yale.edu/homes/perlis-alan/quotes.html
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