Steve Holden wrote: > I think describing this as Ian saying the code in its current form "is a > dead end" is to read rather more into the words than is actually there.
Well, that may be. However, given that the 0.x code is so crufty that the v2 "refactor" is a multi-day (-week, now) process that merits a new project name, and there are enough architecture warts that it's not worth it to keep v2 backwards compatible, I'm not sure what requirements of being a dead end are missing here. :) I suppose that in one sense no OSS project is a dead end since you can always pick up the pieces yourself, but it's clear the 0.x series is not a place to expect much in the way of new developments from its author. -Jonathan -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
