[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: The looming Python 3(000) monster



Arthur Pemberton wrote:
> 
> Maybe I am oversimplifying. But what about using 2.6+ (<3.0) and
> ensure that all code is compatible with 3. And still have 3 in
> parallel for those who want it. So we target 2.6+ , but have 3.0 there
> to ensure everything would work with it, and for early adopters/devs
> 
It is an oversimplification but how much is something we need experience
in order to discover.  2.6 != 3.x even though they are close.  There
will be a 2.7 and a 3.1 and some of those problems should be addressed
in those two releases.  Until we actually build experience trying to do
this, though, we don't know to what extent our work on making things
work on 2.6 will carry over to 3.x.

Note, the port we've just done to 2.6 is not all that's needed.
python-2.6 tries to have a 2.x mode and a 3.x mode (some changes are too
deep to truly have this but it tries).  We'll have to start porting code
to 2.6 with 3.x features turned on at some point.

Also note, this is a valid plan for Fedora but it doesn't address
mpdehaan's issue with supporting python <= 2.5 (which I don't think is
solvable in any elegant manner.)

-Toshio

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]