RetroSearch Browse

Mon May 19 17:39:40 CEST 2008 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2008-May/079570.html

> Nick writes:
>> 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).
> 
> And until then, a +1 for MAL's position from me as well.  2.x should be
> quite conservative about such changes...

I concur.

Raymond

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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2008-May/079570.html below:

[Python-Dev] Module renaming and pickle mechanisms