On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 1:05 PM, Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com> wrote: > It's probably not a bad idea, otherwise we may compilation without > realising it.
s/may/may break/ Actually testing the ABI stability would be much harder - somehow building an extension module against 3.2 with the limited API then testing it against a freshly built 3.3. Perhaps we could manage something like that by building against a system installation of Python 3.2 on builders that have it available. All in all, I think PEP 384 laid the foundations, but there's still plenty of work to be done in the documentation and testing space (and perhaps a few API additions) before the majority of extensions can realistically switch to the stable ABI. A bit of "eating our own dogfood" in the extension modules we ship may be a good place to start (especially new ones that are added). Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia _______________________________________________ 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