On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 03:42, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
5. The parallel evolution of the 2.x and 3.x line meant that the first
version of 2.x with the relevant warning was released only ~7 months
or so before the version of 3.2 where the API was removed
An additional issue that
On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 00:23, Terry Reedy tjre...@udel.edu wrote:
People should retest their stuff with each micro
(bugfix) release anyway.
That would be creating an insane burden on library developers.
Besides, I've so far not have things break between micro releases, it
must be very unusual.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 18/03/11 01:01, Larry Hastings wrote:
In 2.7.1 PyCObject_FromVoidPtr() now calls PyErr_WarnPy3k(). This means
it's been promoted to throwing DeprecationWarning! But that's also
guarded with Py_Py3kWarningFlag so it's not active unless you ask
On 03/18/2011 11:20 AM, Jesus Cea wrote:
I kind of remember doing this change myself. Since no 2.8 is planned, it
seemed sensible to mark PyCObject as a py3k warning.
It's all fine by me, and yeah I think you did the change. I'm sure it
wasn't me.
PS: I am the maintainer of (externally
On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 1:04 AM, Guido van Rossum gu...@python.org wrote:
I don't want to be alarmist and I don't want to start another
moratorium, but I do think that we need to be aware of people coming
in sideways into Python 3 and missing the nice deprecations. So
let's be conservative
I've thought some more about deprecations and subsequent deletions in
Python 3 (but not read the whole thread -- sorry, I've gotten sick
right after coming home from PyCon).
I think that as long as a significant number of people are still using
Python 2, it may be problematic if we start removing
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 17/03/11 16:04, Guido van Rossum wrote:
I don't want to be alarmist and I don't want to start another
moratorium, but I do think that we need to be aware of people coming
in sideways into Python 3 and missing the nice deprecations. So
let's be
On 03/17/2011 03:08 PM, Jesus Cea wrote:
I would suggest to keep deprecating things in 3.x, BUT keeping the
deprecated stuff around (maybe reimplementing them using the new stuff)
until we decide is safe to axe it, instead of the regular 3.x
deprecates, 3.(x+1) cleans up.
At some point, didn't
On Mar 17, 2011, at 12:22 PM, Eric Smith wrote:
On 03/17/2011 03:08 PM, Jesus Cea wrote:
I would suggest to keep deprecating things in 3.x, BUT keeping the
deprecated stuff around (maybe reimplementing them using the new stuff)
until we decide is safe to axe it, instead of the regular 3.x
On Mar 17, 2011, at 4:07 PM, Raymond Hettinger wrote:
Agreeing with Guido is always a good move :-)
In addition, any new deprecations in Py3.x can be marked with py3k warnings
in Py2.7 point releases. That would give users the maximum chance to make
updates before porting, even if they
On 3/17/2011 11:04 AM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
I've thought some more about deprecations and subsequent deletions in
Python 3 (but not read the whole thread -- sorry, I've gotten sick
right after coming home from PyCon).
I think that as long as a significant number of people are still using
On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 19:23:30 -0400
Terry Reedy tjre...@udel.edu wrote:
People should retest their stuff with
each micro (bugfix) release anyway.
I'm not sure they should. The point of having micro releases is that
they don't bring any visible change in behaviour - apart from fixing
bugs, that
On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 8:35 PM, Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net wrote:
On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 19:23:30 -0400
Terry Reedy tjre...@udel.edu wrote:
People should retest their stuff with
each micro (bugfix) release anyway.
I'm not sure they should. The point of having micro releases is that
On 03/17/2011 07:23 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
As I understand it, the Pyxxx to PyCapsule CAPI warning was put in 2.7.
In 2.7, the CObject constructor PyCObject_FromVoidPtr() threw a
PendingDeprecationWarning exception. Like other warnings, these aren't
active by default. This still caused
Antoine Pitrou wrote:
On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 19:23:30 -0400
Terry Reedy tjre...@udel.edu wrote:
People should retest their stuff with
each micro (bugfix) release anyway.
I'm not sure they should. The point of having micro releases is that
they don't bring any visible change in behaviour - apart
15 matches
Mail list logo
