On 3-Jan-08, at 1:07 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote: > On Jan 3, 2008 11:49 AM, Fred Drake <fdrake at acm.org> wrote: >> >> Python 2.6 seems to be entirely targeted at people who really want to >> be on Python 3, but have code that will need to be ported. I >> certainly don't view it as interesting in it's own right. > > It will be though -- it will have genuine new features -- yes, > backported from 3.0, but new features nevertheless, and in a > compatible fashion. I think that there are still tons of people like me for whom 3.0 is still a future concern that is too big to devote cycles to at the moment, but are still very much interested in improving the 2.x series (which improves 3.0) at the same time. I've been inspired by this thread to start working on a few 2.6 items that I had in mind, starting with http://bugs.python.org/ issue1663329 , which mostly just needed documentation and cleanup (now done). Question: should patches include edits to whatsnew.rst, or is the committer responsible for adding a note? -Mike
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