M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
> I don't think that an administrative problem such as forward-
> porting patches to 3.x warrants breakage in the 2.x branch.
>
> After all, the renaming was approached for Python 3.0 and not
> 2.6 *because* it introduces major breakage.
>
> AFAIR, the discussion on the stdlib-sig also didn't include the
> plan to backport such changes to 2.6. Otherwise, we would have
> hashed them out there.
I think MAL is 100% correct here (and I expect Raymond will chime in to
support him at some point as well).
Taking the time to fix out mistake may mean we need to do another alpha
rather than being able to go into the betas as planned, but I think that
would be a much better option than breaking any 2.x code that relies on
__module__ staying the same across releases.
Cheers,
Nick.
--
Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan at gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia
---------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.boredomandlaziness.org
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