skip at pobox.com wrote:
> Raymond> With the extra time, it would be worthwhile to add dbm.sqlite
> Raymond> to 3.0 to compensate for the loss of bsddb so that shelves
> Raymond> won't become useless on Windows builds.
>
> My vote is to separate 2.6 and 3.0 then come back together for 2.7 and 3.1.
> I'm a bit less sure about adding dbm.sqlite. Unless Josiah's version is
> substantially faster and more robust I think my version needs to cook a bit
> longer. I'm just not comfortable enough with SQLite to pronounce my version
> fit enough. I only intended it as a proof-of-concept, and it's clear it has
> some shortcomings.
Given that the *API* is fixed though, it is probably better to have the
module present in 3.0 and bring it back to the main line in 2.7.
If any absolute clangers from a performance/stability point of view get
past Raymond (and everyone else with an interest in this) then they can
be addressed in 3.0.1 in a few months time. Whereas if we leave the
module out entirely, then 3.0 users are completely out of luck until 3.1
(or have to download and possibly build pybsddb).
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