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

Re: The looming Python 3(000) monster



On Tue, 2008-12-09 at 20:40 -0600, Arthur Pemberton wrote:
> 2008/12/9 Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams <ivazqueznet gmail com>:
> > On Tue, 2008-12-09 at 13:05 -0600, Arthur Pemberton wrote:
> >> 2008/12/9 Toshio Kuratomi <a badger gmail com>:
> >> > So let me reiterate:
> >> >
> >> > * python-3.x will not be in Fedora-11 unless it becomes obvious in the
> >> > next few weeks that we absolutely must be running it for the next release.
> >> > * we need more experience with python-2.6+ & python-3 compatibility
> >> > before we decide whether parallel versions of python are necessary.
> >> >
> >> > .. _[1]: http://python-incompatibility.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/README.txt
> >> >
> >> > -Toshio
> >>
> >>
> >> Well again. Some people (like Toshio) seem to have a grasp on the
> >> matter. All this banter hasn't produced anything more of use. How
> >> about forming a temp SIG to take care of this trusting they do the
> >> right thing?
> >
> > As opposed to the Python SIG that already exists?
> 
> No. Seems like the ideal body to come to a decision and let the rest
> of us know.

Well, most of the active members of the Python SIG have chimed in on
this, and we're all channeling Frankie.

Now, I do believe this is an important subject and we do need to gauge
the impact Python 3000 has on Fedora, but I believe that we are grossly
unequipped to do so at this time. I'd like to revisit this topic in
about a year (perhaps sooner, depending on circumstances), but for now
everyone just relax.

-- 
Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams <ivazqueznet gmail com>

PLEASE don't CC me; I'm already subscribed

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


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