On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 9:50 AM, Matti Airas <[email protected]> wrote: > On 21.01.2011 16:11, ext b k wrote: >> >> Hello all, >> >> First off, I want to emphasize that I understand the nature of open >> source development, and that I am not entitled to any free work from any >> of the developers and it's impossible to give precise estimates for when >> anything might get done. >> >> All that said, I'm trying to assess whether it is worth investing the >> money in a commercial PyQt license. My codebase is approx 10k LOC, all >> Python 3.x. I've read the wiki article on Python 3 Issues. Can anybody >> give me insight on a) if this work has been started yet; b) a very rough >> ballpark figure on when there might be even early-beta-level Python 3 >> support? > > Hi, > > for the very reasons you mentioned (as well as the general difficulty of > giving reliable schedule estimates for complex software), I'm grown wary of > giving any exact estimates. However, I can shed some light on the short-term > directions for the core dev team: > > First, we're a few weeks off (depending on how many more betas we're doing) > from doing the 1.0 release. The time until that is spent in stabilization: > we're only fixing incoming bugs to improve the final release quality. > > Then, there're still some reference documentation issues which need > addressing (porting the remaining C++ code snippets in the ref doc to Python > - this would be a perfect volunteer job, btw!). > > Also, optimizing memory usage is one of the first things to do after the > PySide 1.0 release. The bindings are fast (except for some specific issues > that have popped up) but the memory footprint could be smaller, and I hope > we can address that. The core dev team members have had ideas about how to > do that, but the consensus was to improve the stability first. > > I think Python 3 support would be topical after the above issues have been > addressed. However, since I expect PySide's use to increase once we have > done the 1.0 release, the inflow of bugs will probably remain high, so it's > quite difficult to even guess at which point we could get there. > > Of course, the description above is just my guesstimates how the work > prioritization for the core dev team would go: if there would be sufficient > interest within the rest of the community to provide the Python 3 porting, I > see no reason why such work couldn't be integrated right after the 1.0 > release. > > Maybe a more realistic approach for you would be to port the code back to > Python 2 for the time being? Given the rather modest differences between > Python 2 and 3, it doesn't sound to me that this would be an unrealistic > amount of work. > > Cheers, > > ma.
With python 2 support ending and distributions apparently preparing to switch over, this may become a more pressing issue in the near future. -Todd _______________________________________________ PySide mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openbossa.org/listinfo/pyside
