On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 9:22 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 29 Oct, 09:14 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> >> Will 3.1 and 2.7 also be parallel releases? (I ask, not having read >> the 3xxx PEPS at all.) >> >> If yes, why? While I can see a case for 2.6/3.0 being in sync -- new >> features in 2.6 ease the transition to 3.0 -- I'd imagine that 3.1 >> would be better with a shorter cycle (6-9 months) because there are >> more possible rough edges to clean up. 3.1 would likely include >> bugfixes from the eventual 2.7, so 3.1 might also trigger 2.6.1, but I >> don't think there's any harm if 3.1 contains features or incompatible >> fixes that are unavailable to 2.x users. > > 2.7 is where a new version of 2to3 will be distributed. As people actually > start trying to migrate real-world code, lots of issues are inevitably going > to be discovered there. From my perspective, 2.7 and 3.1 need to be synced > because 2.7 is the tool that will actually enable users of existing code to > *use* 3.1.
FWIW, I'm also backporting new 2to3 features and bugfixes to the 2.6 series. -- Cheers, Benjamin Peterson "There's nothing quite as beautiful as an oboe... except a chicken stuck in a vacuum cleaner." _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
