On 10/10/12 23:12, Alex Clark wrote:
On 2012-10-11 02:57:07 +0000, Brian Crowell said:
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 8:07 PM, Alex Clark <acl...@aclark.net> wrote:
No. But maybe a single "Python 3 support" ticket in the relevant branch
(https://bitbucket.org/effbot/pil-2009-raclette). IIUC, PIL has some Python
support added. One possible scenario is that we take that code and release
it.
Do you consider Raclette your upstream? Also, I'm reading through the
Python 3 patches on there.
Yes. IIUC that's where there the latest PIL work is/was taking place.
The last commit I see there is 2011-06-28, which is quite some time ago. Have
you confirmed with Fredrik Lundh that PIL is still under active development?
Do you have an agreement with him about how Pillow and PIL will interact?
I presume that Pillow is a fork because he is unable or unwilling to apply the
patches that you need and make a release. There are various good reasons that
can happen, but for our purposes, it is only important that it _has_ happened.
I expect a Python 3 port to be a big change. The more changes you make, the
harder it will be to bring in patches from the old code base. I can see
wanting to track the original PIL, but it is common for a free software project
eventually reach a state where the original author is no longer able to
continue developing it.
If that has happened to PIL, then we have some questions to consider: Is it
time for a new maintainer for PIL? Is it time for Pillow and PIL to go their
separate ways? Is it time to find a way to merge the two projects?
I don't have any answers, but it seems to me that those are relevant questions.
Essentially all I'm going to do is update the Python source to where
it meets Py3 syntax and library requirements, get the extension
modules to build under both Py2 and Py3, then futz with the bytes/str
division using the three existing ports as a guide. After that, all we should
need is solid testing.
Lundh seemed to expect to be able to
support much older versions of Python, which really wouldn't have
worked when he hit the Python source. I'm going to go with a cleaner
approach.
+1. This would be the time for others to weigh in I guess. Is this what folks
generally want to see from PIL/Pillow wrt to Python 3 support?
+1. I have no reason to expect we will get Python 3 support any other way. I
mentioned before that I am not concerned with compatibility with very old
Python versions (I already have PIL for those systems), so a simple and clean
port looks like the way to go.
Mark S.
_______________________________________________
Image-SIG maillist - Image-SIG@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/image-sig
