-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Dec 4, 2008, at 2:12 PM, Raymond Hettinger wrote: > From: "A.M. Kuchling" <amk at amk.ca> >> I think we should also have a statement upon on python.org about >> future plans: e.g. >> * that there will be a Python 2.7 that will incorporate what we >> learn from >> people trying to port, >> * that 3.1 will rearrange the standard library in mostly-known >> ways, and * that we expect people to use 3.0 mostly for >> compatibility testing, not going into serious production use until >> 3.1 or maybe even 3.2. > > The latter statement worries me. It seems to unnecessarily undermine > adoption of 3.0. It essentially says, "don't use this". Is that > what we want? > ISTM, 3.0 is in pretty good shape. There is nothing intrinsically > wrong > with it. The number one adoption issue is external, i.e. how quickly > key third-party modules get converted. I agree. I tried to put a positive spin on the announcement, and the backward compatibility issue in particular. I probably failed. - -Barry -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin) iQCVAwUBSTgybHEjvBPtnXfVAQJPjgP+NeyLY2ACryOmxeRV8qcotKrMJZYBwu6q gtNjax3m0faRr2VrRwVLpiJqBoVkwpr+heKg7z2rR183MstsgQ9QsQpkZXBV+QnH yK1yA18jaVZhLMR0VPT75GN1KPp5KCL+TbuT0cFtJ/SSt1LT5K356jdMYFi/ZbUP t2YtaWoxB5o= =4lo8 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
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