Jeff Davis wrote:
Keep in mind that backwards compatibility is not the only issue here;
forwards compatibility matters as well*. A lot of the encoding issues I
wrote up ( http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Driver_development ) will
probably be real bugs in a python3 application using a driver that
On 12/02/2010 01:00, Jeff Davis wrote:
* I tried installing psycopg2-2.0.13 and the build system apparently
doesn't support python3.1, so I assume that psycopg2 doesn't support
python3 at all.
python3 was almost completely supported some months ago but then I had
to fix some bugs and almost
On Fri, 2010-02-12 at 10:38 +0100, Federico Di Gregorio wrote:
On 12/02/2010 01:00, Jeff Davis wrote:
* I tried installing psycopg2-2.0.13 and the build system apparently
doesn't support python3.1, so I assume that psycopg2 doesn't support
python3 at all.
python3 was almost completely
On Wed, 2010-02-10 at 23:13 -0500, Greg Smith wrote:
Until then, working apps have to
be the primary motivation for what to work on here, unless there's a
really terrible problem with the driver. The existing psycopg license
and the web site issues were in combination enough to reach that
Obviously this is less urgent than having a driver that works now, but
it's still important. I think we would attract some goodwill from the
python community if we were helping them move to python3, rather than
sitting around waiting 'til they've already moved and decided that they
can't use
I hope people don't mind my asking about this on the list... as I hinted at
before, I don't really follow the development of PostgreSQL, I was just
interested in the Python driver project that I heard about.
Anyways, as I understand it, the current goal is to use psycopg and get it
changed to
Kevin Ar18 kevina...@hotmail.com writes:
When I first heard about the endeavor, I thought the goal was to take
one or several of the non-copyleft projects, which were rather
unfocused, and work with those teams to produce a really good
implementation for Python. However, as I understand it
Well, all else being equal we'd certainly prefer a library that was
licensed more like the core Postgres database. However, we don't have
infinite resources, and an LGPL license is not a showstopper (at least
not to the people who seem to be willing to work on this problem).
The
Kevin Ar18 wrote:
Based on that, I guess my question is what would it have taken to have
picked one of BSD/MIT projects and working with those people instead?
In other words, what key things affected the decision for psycopg?
What areas is it so far ahead in or that would have just been
Tom Lane wrote:
If you feel that a BSD/MIT license is a must-have for your purposes,
you're certainly free to push development of one of the other driver
projects instead, and to try to organize some other people to help.
I don't believe anyone is trying to funnel all development effort into
10 matches
Mail list logo
