"Barry A. Warsaw" wrote: > > >>>>> "M" == M <mal@lemburg.com> writes: > > M> I don't understand why we cannot take the risk of trying this > M> out in an alpha version. > > Logistically, we probably need BDFL pronouncement on this and if we're > to get alpha2 out today, that won't happen in time. If we don't get > the alpha out today, we probably will not get the first beta out by > IPC9, and I think that's important too. With the recent additions of rather important changes I see the need for a third alpha, so getting the beta out for IPC9 will probably not work anyway. Let's get the alpha 2 out today and then add pymalloc to alpha 3. > So I'd be +1 on adding it opt-in for beta1, which would make the code > available to all, and allow us the full beta cycle and 2.2 development > cycle to do the micro benchmarks and evaluation for opt-out (or simply > always on) in 2.2. -- Marc-Andre Lemburg ______________________________________________________________________ Company: http://www.egenix.com/ Consulting: http://www.lemburg.com/ Python Pages: http://www.lemburg.com/python/
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