On 12/16/2014 03:09 AM, Barry Warsaw wrote: > On Dec 16, 2014, at 02:15 PM, Skip Montanaro wrote: > >> While he doesn't explicitly say so, I got the distinct impression reading >> his recent blog post that he supports one source, not forked sources. > > I've ported a fair bit of code, both pure-Python and C extensions, both > libraries and applications. For successful library ports to Python 3 that > need to remain Python 2 compatible, I would almost always recommend a single > source, common dialect, no-2to3 approach. There may be exceptions, but this > strategy has proven effective over and over. I generally find I don't need > `six` but it does provide some nice conveniences that can be helpful. With > something like tox running your test suite, it doesn't even have to be painful > to maintain. I'll agree; with tox and some automated CI system like travis or jenkins or whatever, once you've done the port, it's only a minor nuisance to maintain a straddled 2/3 codebase. Programming in only the subset still isn't much fun, but maintenance is slightly easier than I expected it to be. "Drive by" contributions become slightly harder to accept because they often break 3 compatibility, and contributors are often unable or unwilling to install all the required versions that are tested by tox. - C
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