On Mon, 6 Apr 2009 at 12:00, Jesse Noller wrote: > On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 9:26 AM, Barry Warsaw <barry at python.org> wrote: >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> On Apr 6, 2009, at 9:21 AM, Jesse Noller wrote: >> >>> On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 4:33 PM, M.-A. Lemburg <mal at egenix.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> On 2009-04-02 17:32, Martin v. Löwis wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I propose the following PEP for inclusion to Python 3.1. >>>> >>>> Thanks for picking this up. >>>> >>>> I'd like to extend the proposal to Python 2.7 and later. >>>> >>> >>> -1 to adding it to the 2.x series. There was much discussion around >>> adding features to 2.x *and* 3.0, and the consensus seemed to *not* >>> add new features to 2.x and use those new features as carrots to help >>> lead people into 3.0. >> >> Actually, isn't the policy just that nothing can go into 2.7 that isn't >> backported from 3.1? Whether the actual backport happens or not is up to >> the developer though. OTOH, we talked about a lot of things and my >> recollection is probably fuzzy. >> >> Barry > > That *is* the official policy, but there was discussions around no > further backporting of features from 3.1 into 2.x, therefore providing > more of an upgrade incentive My sense was that this wasn't proposed as a hard and fast rule, more as a strongly suggested guideline. And in this case, I think you could argue that the PEP is actually fixing a bug in the current namespace packaging system. Some projects, especially the large ones where this matters most, are going to have to maintain backward compatibility for 2.x for a long time even as 3.x adoption accelerates. It seems a shame to require packagers to continue to deal with the problems caused by the current system even after all the platforms have made it to 2.7+. --David
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