On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 4:59 AM, Brett Cannon <br...@python.org> wrote: > On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 13:23, Georg Brandl <g.bra...@gmx.net> wrote: >> Am 24.02.2012 18:46, schrieb Antoine Pitrou: >> > Overall, I like the principle of this PEP, but I really dislike the >> > dual version numbering it introduces. Such a numbering scheme will be >> > cryptic and awkward for anyone but Python specialists. >> >> I agree. > > Ditto.
And, in contrast, I believe that the free-wheeling minor version number proposed in PEP 407 is a train wreck and PR disaster waiting to happen. I find it interesting that we can so readily agree that using the major version number in any way is impossible due to the ongoing Python 2 -> 3 transition, yet I get so much pushback on the idea that messing with the implications of changing the *minor* version number will unnecessarily confuse or upset users. I spent quite a bit of time thinking about the ways people *use* the CPython version number, and it switched me from mildly preferring a separate version number for the standard library to being a strong *opponent* of increasing the rate of change for the minor version number. Anyway, the PEP now describes the user scenarios that convinced me that a separate version number for the standard library was the right way to go: http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0413/#user-scenarios 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
