"Raymond Hettinger" <raymond.hettinger at verizon.net> writes: > I think it would be worthwhile to occasionally (every 3 months or so) > package a Py2.4 pre-alpha release. My feel is that a number of people > without compilers (Windows users especially) would enjoy working with > the latest python if it were an easy thing to do (has an installer, > etc). Speaking as a "latest release" junkie with not enough time to build for myself, I'd say it might be nice. But the killer is that you need extensions. On Windows, for instance, you'd need to prevail on Mark Hammond to produce 2.4-compatible win32all builds (pretty much essential on Windows, and a serious pain to build by hand, I believe). Also, you'd need an installer which would sit happily alongside the production version (install in a separate directory, include a python24.exe so as not to clash in terms of command names, etc). > Besides increasing community involvement, this could open up a whole new > stream of user feedback so we can discover issues sooner rather than > later. Since non-developers stress the system in different ways, they > are more likely to surface various documentation, usability, and > integration bugs. A compromise may just be a simple zipped up compile. That helps people without compilers, but leaves the effort of "installing" to the user. It still doesn't help with the extensions issue, though... Paul. -- This signature intentionally left blank
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