> Guido> *If* we're going for an even/odd scheme, I wouldn't want to swap > Guido> the Linux convention, so 2.2 would have to be stable, and 2.3 > Guido> experimental. > [Skip] > Yeah, I'd tend to agree. For one thing, all the Linux distributions > are used to the Linux even-odd convention. Not confusing them would > probably be a good thing. (Hey, how about we skip 2.3 altogether > and get in complete version sync with Linux? Maybe we could even > convince Linus to do our releases for us. :-) I think Linus has once said that Python alone was not a reason to reject a certain piece of software; that's a far cry from helping us out. :-) > Guido> Maybe I should PEP it first? :-) > > You've got a smiley there, Because any PEP I write appears to mostly raise controversy once brought up on c.l.py. > but some things will obviously have to change about the way releases > are managed, so a PEP might not be a bad idea. An informational PEP explaining the procedure, yes. A PEP asking the community what they want, heck no. The ones that are still believing that python-dev is a closed list should *definitely* continue to believe so. The fake toll booth is doing its work admirably. :-) > Has Jack chimed in on this thread from the Mac quarter? Tim, can > Windows installers be created by other people? --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
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