Lennart Regebro, 16.03.2011 00:04:
On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 18:56, Nick Coghlan wrote:
why not just consider this another
instance of the 2.x/3.x incompatibility? That's what it is after all.
Apparently not, as the code already ran under Python 3.1.
Personally, I would expect that breaking
Eric Smith, 16.03.2011 04:12:
On 3/15/2011 10:58 PM, Lennart Regebro wrote:
On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 22:42, Guido van Rossum wrote:
Fortunately there may not be any more such cases since no new major
versions of Python 2 will be released. So I'm not sure what an update
of PEP 5 will buy us.
On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 3:20 AM, Stefan Behnel stefan...@behnel.de wrote:
I still consider this is mostly a communication issue. If this change had
been properly written up, preferably in a PEP, including the reasoning for
it to get done, I think this whole discussion would not have been
On 15 Mar, 2011, at 19:31, Greg Ewing wrote:
Martin v. Löwis wrote:
There must be at least a one-year transition period between the
release of the transitional version of Python and the release
of the backwards incompatible version.
I still think this is going to result in rude shocks
Am 16.03.11 08:06, schrieb Nick Coghlan:
On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 3:20 AM, Stefan Behnelstefan...@behnel.de wrote:
I still consider this is mostly a communication issue. If this change had
been properly written up, preferably in a PEP, including the reasoning for
it to get done, I think this
On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 9:11 AM, Martin v. Löwis mar...@v.loewis.de wrote:
Am 16.03.11 08:06, schrieb Nick Coghlan:
On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 3:20 AM, Stefan Behnelstefan...@behnel.de
wrote:
I still consider this is mostly a communication issue. If this change had
been properly written up,
On 16 Mar, 2011, at 9:56, Nick Coghlan wrote:
Interestingly, there is no definite time frame on the deprecation
warnings in that discussion. It was just the standard deprecation in
X.Y means removal in X.Y+1 that lead to 3.2 no longer providing the
PyCObject API.
Speaking of deprecation
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 08/03/11 22:16, Georg Brandl wrote:
But in any case, by popular demand fix is now removed, and only
close and its variants actually closes the issue -- since there
is not much chance that you can write close #12345 without
actually meaning to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 15/03/11 16:01, Lennart Regebro wrote:
Python 2.6's API wasn't removed in 2.7. It remains available.
But not in 3.2. And the new API appeared in 2.7. That is a deprecation
period of seven and a half months.
I strongly opposed CObject
2011/3/16 Jesus Cea j...@jcea.es:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 08/03/11 22:16, Georg Brandl wrote:
But in any case, by popular demand fix is now removed, and only
close and its variants actually closes the issue -- since there
is not much chance that you can write close
On 03/09/2011 01:15 AM, Stefan Behnel wrote:
I can confirm that the Cython project was as surprised of the
PyCapsule change in Python 3.2 as (I guess) most other users,
I was a bit surprised by it too, and I wrote the Capsule object. (Well,
hacked up CObject to give it a new API.)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 11/03/11 22:50, Guido van Rossum wrote:
I propose we try to find an embedded blogger who participates in
python-dev but is focused on making regular blog posts about the
interesting tidbits. There's no requirement to be complete (which I
think
I strongly opposed CObject deprecation in 2.7, as you can see in
http://bugs.python.org/issue9675 and mailing list archives.
Interestingly enough, Lennart would have preferred a longer
deprecation period, not a shorter one. So he would have been even
more upset had the deprecation not be done
On Mar 16, 2011, at 11:07 AM, Jesus Cea wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 11/03/11 22:50, Guido van Rossum wrote:
I propose we try to find an embedded blogger who participates in
python-dev but is focused on making regular blog posts about the
interesting tidbits.
Larry Hastings wrote:
The PyCapsule API is very much like the CObject API. In fact, in Python
3.1 CObject was actually implemented on top of PyCapsule. It should be
very easy to support both APIs.
Perhaps the code for the 3.1 implementation could be pulled
out and made available to people
In fact, since the deprecation in the Python 2 line happened in 2.7,
the deprecation period of this API in practice was between July 3rd
2010 and February 20 2011. That is a deprecation period of somewhat
longer than seven months. Nobody obviously though 2.6 was out of
practical use by now,
On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 09:20, Martin v. Löwis mar...@v.loewis.de wrote:
In fact, since the deprecation in the Python 2 line happened in 2.7,
the deprecation period of this API in practice was between July 3rd
2010 and February 20 2011. That is a deprecation period of somewhat
longer than
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 19:22, Reid Kleckner reid.kleck...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't know how your code works, but handling either type from C
seems very straightforward to me. You can simply use #ifdef
Py_COBJECT_H to see if the cobject.h header was pulled into Python.h.
Similarly for
Python 2.6's API wasn't removed in 2.7. It remains available.
But not in 3.2. And the new API appeared in 2.7.
No, it didn't. It first appeared in 3.1.
That is a deprecation period of seven and a half months.
Not true. It's a deprecation period of 19 months and two
releases (3.1 and
On 3/14/11 5:30 PM, Lennart Regebro wrote:
Many projects, not only the Zope Toolkit needs to support a lot of
versions. The Zope component architecture currently supports 2.4, 2.5
and 2.6 and is expected to work on 2.7. I don't know if 2.4 or 2.5 can
be dropped, but it definitely will be
On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 12:02, Martin v. Löwis mar...@v.loewis.de wrote:
If you actually had been supporting 2.x and 3.x in parallel for the last two
years, you would have had a deprecation period of 19 months
and two releases. It's only if you are now migrating from 2 to 3
that you notice the
I noticed the API change now because it's gone from 3.2. That's how
most API changes gets noticed: Things stop working. And that's OK.
Deprecation periods are there to help you support multiple versions at
the same time.
That may be the source of misunderstanding. In my understanding, that's
On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 15:39, Martin v. Löwis mar...@v.loewis.de wrote:
Of course you could have. You could have added a version of your code
that uses capsules (just as you are probably doing now).
No I'm not.
Right - and that's why the deprecation period is not about supporting
multiple
On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 6:46 PM, Lennart Regebro rege...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 15:39, Martin v. Löwis mar...@v.loewis.de wrote:
Of course you could have. You could have added a version of your code
that uses capsules (just as you are probably doing now).
No I'm not.
The
On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 18:56, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
why not just consider this another
instance of the 2.x/3.x incompatibility? That's what it is after all.
Apparently not, as the code already ran under Python 3.1.
//Lennart
___
On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 18:46:37 -0400
Lennart Regebro rege...@gmail.com wrote:
Right - and that's why the deprecation period is not about supporting
multiple versions, but to reduce the need for people to adjust their
code on a quick notice.
I think we need to adjust PEP 5 then. We can't
Martin v. Löwis wrote:
There must be at least a one-year transition period between the
release of the transitional version of Python and the release
of the backwards incompatible version.
I still think this is going to result in rude shocks to
people switching from 2 to 3 and jumping several
On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 19:14, Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net wrote:
Beside, if you need long-term support, there is a well-known solution:
turn to a company that provides such support. That company can be called
Redhat, Canonical, ActiveState or even Apple. The community of
volunteers
On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 21:16:58 -0400
Lennart Regebro rege...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 19:14, Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net wrote:
Beside, if you need long-term support, there is a well-known solution:
turn to a company that provides such support. That company can be called
On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 21:54, Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net wrote:
I don't know what other core devs, but I don't think this discussion is
going anywhere. If porting the ZTK is a burden for you, perhaps you
should try to find some financial support for it (or let other people
do it for
On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 10:14:12PM -0400, Lennart Regebro wrote:
Up until the reactions from the core Python developers on these real
world problems, it was hard work, but also fun.
It is still. The majority of the responses were informative on
backwards compatibility and release process. And
On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 7:14 PM, Lennart Regebro rege...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 21:54, Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net wrote:
I don't know what other core devs, but I don't think this discussion is
going anywhere. If porting the ZTK is a burden for you, perhaps you
should
On Mar 15, 2011, at 10:14 PM, Lennart Regebro wrote:
On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 21:54, Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net wrote:
I don't know what other core devs, but I don't think this discussion is
going anywhere. If porting the ZTK is a burden for you, perhaps you
should try to find some
On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 22:42, Guido van Rossum gu...@python.org wrote:
Fortunately there may not be any more such cases since no new major
versions of Python 2 will be released. So I'm not sure what an update
of PEP 5 will buy us.
That is a good point. But at least making sure no more API's
On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 22:58, Lennart Regebro rege...@gmail.com wrote:
That is a good point. But at least making sure no more API's get
deprecated in 3.3 (and preferably 3.4)
I meant removed.
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
On 3/15/2011 10:58 PM, Lennart Regebro wrote:
On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 22:42, Guido van Rossumgu...@python.org wrote:
Fortunately there may not be any more such cases since no new major
versions of Python 2 will be released. So I'm not sure what an update
of PEP 5 will buy us.
That is a good
On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 01:15, Stefan Behnel stefan...@behnel.de wrote:
I can confirm that the Cython project was as surprised of the PyCapsule
change in Python 3.2 as (I guess) most other users, and I would claim that
we are a project with one of the highest probabilities of being impacted by
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 6:30 PM, Lennart Regebro rege...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 01:15, Stefan Behnel stefan...@behnel.de wrote:
I can confirm that the Cython project was as surprised of the PyCapsule
change in Python 3.2 as (I guess) most other users, and I would claim that
we
On Mar 11, 2011, at 7:12 PM, Paul Moore wrote:
On 11 March 2011 23:24, Guido van Rossum gu...@python.org wrote:
I'm interested in the task and I guess I'll follow-up with Doug Hellman. I
don't follow -ideas close enough to summarize it, but I'd contribute to a
-dev blog.
Awesome! (And we
On Wed, 09 Mar 2011 07:15:07 +0100
Stefan Behnel stefan...@behnel.de wrote:
Actually, why not put up a web page of upcoming changes somewhere, that
lists major decisions with user impact that were taken on python-dev?
Including a link to the relevant discussion and decision. Often enough,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 03/11/2011 03:24 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
On Wed, 09 Mar 2011 07:15:07 +0100
Stefan Behnel stefan...@behnel.de wrote:
Actually, why not put up a web page of upcoming changes somewhere, that
lists major decisions with user impact that were
On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 3:40 PM, Doug Hellmann doug.hellm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mar 9, 2011, at 9:50 AM, Tim Lesher wrote:
On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 01:15, Stefan Behnel stefan...@behnel.de wrote:
Actually, why not put up a web page of upcoming changes somewhere, that
lists major decisions with
On Fri, 11 Mar 2011 15:53:03 -0500
Tres Seaver tsea...@palladion.com wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 03/11/2011 03:24 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
On Wed, 09 Mar 2011 07:15:07 +0100
Stefan Behnel stefan...@behnel.de wrote:
Actually, why not put up a web page of
On Wed, 9 Mar 2011 15:40:56 -0500
Doug Hellmann doug.hellm...@gmail.com wrote:
The original request from the board was for the communications team to write
the messages, but I think it is more appropriate for the people doing the
work to talk about it. [...]
I asked Michael to add this
On Mar 11, 2011 4:52 PM, Guido van Rossum gu...@python.org wrote:
On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 3:40 PM, Doug Hellmann doug.hellm...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Mar 9, 2011, at 9:50 AM, Tim Lesher wrote:
On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 01:15, Stefan Behnel stefan...@behnel.de
wrote:
Actually, why not put up a
On Fri, 11 Mar 2011 22:56:49 +0100
Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net wrote:
On Fri, 11 Mar 2011 15:53:03 -0500
Tres Seaver tsea...@palladion.com wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 03/11/2011 03:24 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
On Wed, 09 Mar 2011 07:15:07 +0100
On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 5:05 PM, Brian Curtin brian.cur...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mar 11, 2011 4:52 PM, Guido van Rossum gu...@python.org wrote:
On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 3:40 PM, Doug Hellmann doug.hellm...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Mar 9, 2011, at 9:50 AM, Tim Lesher wrote:
On Wed, Mar 9, 2011
On 11 March 2011 23:24, Guido van Rossum gu...@python.org wrote:
I'm interested in the task and I guess I'll follow-up with Doug Hellman. I
don't follow -ideas close enough to summarize it, but I'd contribute to a
-dev blog.
Awesome! (And we don't need to stop at one blogger. Many hands make
On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 1:15 AM, Stefan Behnel stefan...@behnel.de wrote:
A publicly visible list of those decisions would
a) make it easier for non-core developers to follow important changes on
python-dev
b) allow potentially impacted people to bring up their POV more quickly,
e.g. during
On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 01:15, Stefan Behnel stefan...@behnel.de wrote:
Actually, why not put up a web page of upcoming changes somewhere, that
lists major decisions with user impact that were taken on python-dev?
Including a link to the relevant discussion and decision. Often enough,
decisions
On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 1:15 AM, Stefan Behnel stefan...@behnel.de wrote:
Martin v. Löwis, 08.03.2011 23:47:
I think everything here is as it should be. People who really cared
about forwards compatibility could have known, but factually, most
people don't care enough. Those then learn for the
Actually, why not put up a web page of upcoming changes somewhere, that
lists major decisions with user impact that were taken on python-dev?
I think what's new serves this purpose properly.
Usually, every time I commit a new feature, I update the what's new
file as well.
In fact we already
On Mar 9, 2011, at 9:50 AM, Tim Lesher wrote:
On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 01:15, Stefan Behnel stefan...@behnel.de wrote:
Actually, why not put up a web page of upcoming changes somewhere, that
lists major decisions with user impact that were taken on python-dev?
Including a link to the relevant
On Wed, 9 Mar 2011 19:42:36 +0100
Giampaolo Rodolà g.rod...@gmail.com wrote:
Actually, why not put up a web page of upcoming changes somewhere, that
lists major decisions with user impact that were taken on python-dev?
I think what's new serves this purpose properly.
Usually, every time I
On 3/9/2011 4:14 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
On Wed, 9 Mar 2011 19:42:36 +0100
Perhaps the part of the what's new document which deals with porting
issues and compatibility breakage would need more highlighting?
That could go at the tops.
Deletions in 3.3
...
Planned deletions in future
On 3/9/2011 9:50 AM, Tim Lesher wrote:
We used to do biweekly-ish Python-Dev summaries for this reason.
They were, is a sense, too detailed, complete, and voluminous.
In whatever format, terser announcement of just things others really
need to know - like decisions that affect them, would
Martin v. Löwis, 08.03.2011 23:47:
I think everything here is as it should be. People who really cared
about forwards compatibility could have known, but factually, most
people don't care enough. Those then learn for the first time that
some feature was deprecated after it is actually removed.
57 matches
Mail list logo
