On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 5:13 PM, Eli Stevens (Gmail) <wickedg...@gmail.com>wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 4:01 PM, Yury Selivanov <yselivanov...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > +1 to the question. Why can't it be that way? > > If by "that way" you mean "leave python 2.x behind post 1.6" I'd like > to note that IMO pypy has been under-acknowledged by the wider python > community for a very long time. That's finally starting to change > (pypy production releases, cpython devs devoting resources to make > alternate implementations not second-class citizens, etc.), but by > abandoning the segment of the language with the largest userbase, the > project would go back to niche status again. Yeah, doing so might > position pypy well to become the default python 3 implementation, but > I find it hard to imagine that tacking on another N years until pypy > is a significant percentage of python deployments is going to be good > for the project. > There's a large difference between "Abandoning 2.x" and "Starting the ball rolling toward 3.x in a timely manner". If anything, not having a plan for the move to 3.x is more likely to sideline the PyPy project. BTW, a lot of sites use software that'll ask you which branches you want to check each of your changesets into - IOW, click two buttons and your checkin could go to 2.x and 3.x. I don't know if there's anything free for Mercurial like that.
_______________________________________________ pypy-dev mailing list pypy-dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pypy-dev
