RetroSearch Browse

Mon May 19 14:45:05 CEST 2008 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2008-May/079564.html

"Nick Coghlan" <ncoghlan at gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:4831704D.1060201 at gmail.com...
| 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).

For what little it's worth, I was surprised too that the 3.0 renames were 
backported as thr default versions.  It strikes me as possibly a 'bridge 
too far' ;-).

tjr

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2008-May/079564.html below:

[Python-Dev] Module renaming and pickle mechanisms