[Redirecting to Python Dev] On 11/22/2013 10:25 AM, Richard Tew wrote: > On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 3:16 AM, Ethan Furman <ethan at stoneleaf.us> wrote: >> On 11/22/2013 01:00 AM, Richard Tew wrote: >>> Yet, suddenly, the chance that we may release a "Stackless Python >>> 2.8", is a concern. >> >> Because there is no CPython 2.8 to mirror, and we've said there will not be >> one. >> >> It certainly didn't help that this was presented one week before the feature >> freeze deadline for 3.4 and Christian stated [1] his "2.8" release was going >> to happen in one week unless we talked him out of it. >> >> >>> We're not talking about releasing a Python 2.8 against anyone's wishes >>> here. >> >> Having "Python 2.8" in the name is going to be a PR nightmare. Other names >> have been suggested. > > But how is it going to be a PR nightmare? You and others can say it, > but is it reasonable to do so? Apparently some of us think so. ;) There isn't supposed to be a Python 2.8. If you create one, people will find it. There are other distributions that package and present Python x.y, so it would be reasonable to think that a Stackless Python 2.8 meant a regular Python 2.8.0 > No-one has ever mistaken us for Python. We're not, and never will be > high enough in the search results. Our web site is not, and has never > been misrepresentative in a way where people could assume it is the > proper Python web site. In our history of releasing versions with > matching numbers, no-one has yet mistaken us. I suspect you would find many more hits if you were the only ones to have a Python 2.8. See above for why that would be confusing. > Yet, we're told we should adopt wacky version numbers like 10, or > rename our project from Stackless Python. Sometimes we have to do wacky stuff to avoid unnecessary confusion. -- ~Ethan~
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