> We're looking forward to discussing this with everyone. I think the PEP is asking too much (although I can understand how marketing may have influenced that), and also asks for permission where none is needed.
It is too broad: it asks (in its title) for the integration of Unladen Swallow, when it actually only asks for integration of the JIT compiler (maybe Unladen Swallow actually only *is* the JIT compiler, but given the contributions that have already been integrated, this wouldn't be my understanding). It asks for permission where none is needed: Permission to continue working on a feature you already contributed is actually granted to every contributor - in fact, contributors are *expected* to continue to work on their feature, at least for fixing bugs in it. It also asks for the creation an merging of branches. Basically, you can created any branches you want - the PEP only needs to worry whether it is ok to have the feature on the trunk. The section on the proposed merge plan is but one implementation detail. And I don't even talk about the pony. These aside, I'm certainly +1 on the PEP. I would like to point out that the PEP still *could* target Python 2.7 if you wanted to, until beta 1. Having missed alpha 1 is no really limitation. OTOH, I support the idea of not adding it to 2.7, e.g. to reduce the maintenance effort, and not introduce a new risk for the last 2.x release. Regards, Martin _______________________________________________ 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
