RetroSearch Browse

Fri Jun 6 21:09:56 CEST 2014 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2014-June/134900.html

On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 11:08 PM, Donald Stufft <donald at stufft.io> wrote:
>
> On Jun 6, 2014, at 3:04 PM, Brian Curtin <brian at python.org> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 10:56 PM,  <dw+python-dev at hmmz.org> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jun 06, 2014 at 10:49:24PM +0400, Brian Curtin wrote:
>>>
>>>> None of the options are particularly good, but yes, I think that's an
>>>> option we have to consider. We're supporting 2.7.x for 6 more years on
>>>> a compiler that is already 6 years old.
>>>
>>> Surely that is infinitely less desirable than simply bumping the minor
>>> version?
>>
>> It's definitely not desirable, but "simply" bumping the minor version
>> is not A Thing.
>
> Why? I mean even if it’s the same thing as 2.7 just with an updated
> compiler that seems like a better answer than having to deal with
> 2.7.whatever suddenly breaking all C exts.

Because then we have to maintain 2.8 at a time when no one even wants
to maintain 2.7?

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2014-June/134900.html below:

[Python-Dev] Moving Python 3.5 on Windows to a new compiler