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

Re: The looming Python 3(000) monster



2008/12/10 Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams <ivazqueznet gmail com>:
> 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.


Just to  be clear, does that mean no Python 3.0 in parallel either?


-- 
Fedora 9 : sulphur is good for the skin
( www.pembo13.com )


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