On Sun, Jan 10, 2010 at 12:09:08PM -0800, Brett Cannon wrote:
> I don't think ending the 2.x series at 2.7 makes it look bad
> compared to 3.2; it's simply the end of a development line like
> any other software project. I suspect 2.7 will have a protracted
> bugfix window because so much code runs on 2.x exclusively at the
> moment.
I would guess over 99% of all Python code written doesn't run on
Python 3. Given that, I think it is premature to close the door on
new major versions of Python 2.x. Also, we as a project should be
careful not to present the image that Python 2.x will not be
supported in the future.
> If there really is an outcry on this we can re-visit the issue,
> but as of right now we need to move forward at some point and 2.7
> seems like that good point.
I think that's bad PR. If I had a successful product, I would not
announce its end of life just to see how many customers scream and
then decide if I should devote more resources to continue
maintaining it.
IMHO, the release notes should say something like:
After the Python 2.7 release, the focus of Python development
will be on Python 3. There will continue to be maintainance
releases of Python 2.x.
trying-to-head-off-the-python-is-dying-meme-ly y'rs Neil
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