RetroSearch Browse

Wed May 28 21:40:37 CEST 2008 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2008-May/079849.html

On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 10:08 AM, Bill Janssen <janssen at parc.com> wrote:
>> I'm beginning to wonder whether I'm the only one who cares about
>> the Python 2.x branch not getting cluttered up with artifacts caused
>> by a broken forward merge strategy.
>
> I share your concern.  Seems to me that perhaps (not sure, but
> perhaps) the rush to back-port from 3.x, and the concern about
> minimizing pain of moving from 2.x to 3.x, has become the tail wagging
> the dog.
>

Speaking for myself, I know that if fixing something in 2.x means a
pain in forward-porting, I will just do it in 3.x and leave it someone
else to back-port to 2.x which will lower the chances of the back-port
ever occurring. I don't want to do this, but I am fighting damn hard
against burn-out at this point and if I have to choose between
complete burn-out and only working on the leading edge version of
Python, I will choose the latter. So I for one appreciate Christian
taking all of us into account in terms of the approach taken to make
our lives easier when we work on Python.

-Brett

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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2008-May/079849.html below:

[Python-Dev] [Python-3000] Stabilizing the C API of 2.6 and 3.0