Erik Bray writes:
> Nope. I totally get that they don’t know what a shell or command prompt
> is. THEY. NEED. TO. LEARN.
I don't want to take a position on the proposal, and I agree that we
should *strongly* encourage everyone to learn. But "THEY. NEED. TO.
LEARN." is not obvious to me.
Ane
On Nov 4, 2017 08:31, "Stephen J. Turnbull" <
[email protected]> wrote:
Erik Bray writes:
> Nope. I totally get that they don’t know what a shell or command prompt
> is. THEY. NEED. TO. LEARN.
Just to be clear I did not write this. Someone replying to me did.
I'm going to
Hello,
one of my long standing ideas to improve Python is to adjust the
release cycle and version number handling. In short, to simplify it.
This is the first draft of the idea:
Proposal to change Python version release cycle
===
Goal
Increment
On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 10:25 PM, wrote:
> I suggest to change this to increment the major version for every new release
> of the 1,5 year cycle.
> And allow new Python standard library backward compatible changes for every
> minor release cycle every 6 months.
The usual implication of a major ve
On 04.11.2017 12:35, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 10:25 PM, wrote:
I suggest to change this to increment the major version for every new release
of the 1,5 year cycle.
And allow new Python standard library backward compatible changes for every
minor release cycle every 6 mont
On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 11:00 PM, Wolfgang wrote:
>
>
> On 04.11.2017 12:35, Chris Angelico wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 10:25 PM, wrote:
>>>
>>> I suggest to change this to increment the major version for every new
>>> release
>>> of the 1,5 year cycle.
>>> And allow new Python standard l
Hello Wolfgang,
On Sat, 4 Nov 2017 12:25:57 +0100 (CET)
[email protected] wrote:
> Hello,
>
> one of my long standing ideas to improve Python is to adjust the
> release cycle and version number handling. In short, to simplify it.
There has been ample discussion in the past about changing our r
On 4 November 2017 at 00:35, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> [A copy from https://github.com/python/typing/issues/495 to get more
> people's attention to this issue.]
>
> I'm wondering if we should remove typing from the stdlib. Now's the time to
> think about this, as the feature freeze for 3.7 is abou
On Saturday, November 4, 2017, Erik Bray wrote:
> On Nov 4, 2017 08:31, "Stephen J. Turnbull" tsukuba.ac.jp
> >
> wrote:
>
> Erik Bray writes:
>
> > Nope. I totally get that they don’t know what a shell or command prompt
> > is. THEY. NEED. TO. LEARN.
>
>
> Just to be clear I did not write t
On 04.11.2017 14:29, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
Hello Wolfgang,
On Sat, 4 Nov 2017 12:25:57 +0100 (CET)
[email protected] wrote:
Hello,
one of my long standing ideas to improve Python is to adjust the
release cycle and version number handling. In short, to simplify it.
There has been ample di
On 4 November 2017 at 23:29, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>
> Hello Wolfgang,
>
> On Sat, 4 Nov 2017 12:25:57 +0100 (CET)
> [email protected] wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> one of my long standing ideas to improve Python is to adjust the
>> release cycle and version number handling. In short, to simplify it.
>
On 5 November 2017 at 00:40, Wolfgang wrote:
>
>
> On 04.11.2017 14:29, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>>
>>
>> Hello Wolfgang,
>>
>> On Sat, 4 Nov 2017 12:25:57 +0100 (CET)
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> one of my long standing ideas to improve Python is to adjust the
>>> release cycl
Hi Nick,
On 04.11.2017 15:48, Nick Coghlan wrote:
On 4 November 2017 at 23:29, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
Hello Wolfgang,
On Sat, 4 Nov 2017 12:25:57 +0100 (CET)
[email protected] wrote:
Hello,
one of my long standing ideas to improve Python is to adjust the
release cycle and version number ha
On Sat, 4 Nov 2017 16:10:32 +0100
Wolfgang wrote:
>
> Another possibility is to change only the versioning
> to major.minor instead of major.minor.patch. Then having
> a simpler versioning scheme for other Python implementations
> as only benefit (and the simplification to spell compatibility).
Hi Nick,
On 04.11.2017 16:01, Nick Coghlan wrote:
On 5 November 2017 at 00:40, Wolfgang wrote:
On 04.11.2017 14:29, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
Hello Wolfgang,
On Sat, 4 Nov 2017 12:25:57 +0100 (CET)
[email protected] wrote:
Hello,
one of my long standing ideas to improve Python is to adju
On 04.11.2017 16:44, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
Just to clarify: Python 2.0 was called 2.0 because the BeOpen marketing
department thought it was good idea, not because there were major
incompatible changes going into that release.
Porting code from Python 1.5.2 to 2.0 was relatively straight forward
On Sun, Nov 5, 2017 at 2:29 AM, Wolfgang wrote:
> A good point but two digits minor version numbers have the possibility
> to break a lot code. There is a lot of stuff out where a single digit
> major version is assumed. Even the official Python build for windows
> with python27.dll, python36.dll
I could see the typing module staying but:
- typing_extension (or the new official external module) append types in
the typing module;
- if typing_extension is not installed or too old and missing some
types, any missing type being accessed returns some kind of mock object
that avoid crashing;
- a
Just to clarify: Python 2.0 was called 2.0 because the BeOpen marketing
department thought it was good idea, not because there were major
incompatible changes going into that release.
Porting code from Python 1.5.2 to 2.0 was relatively straight forward
and not much different from other minor rele
On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 10:44 AM, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
> Just to clarify: Python 2.0 was called 2.0 because the BeOpen marketing
> department thought it was good idea, not because there were major
> incompatible changes going into that release.
>
Alternative history question: if it was just 1.6,
On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 7:05 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> Perhaps typing could switch to being a bundled module, such that it
> had its own version, independent of the Python standard library
> version, but was still present by default in new installations?
>
This is beginning to sound like the most
On 5 November 2017 at 01:29, Wolfgang wrote:
> On 04.11.2017 16:01, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>> We're currently more likely to go the other direction, and stick with
>> the 3.x numbering for an extended period (potentially reaching 3.10,
>> 3.11, 3.12, etc), so that the ongoing disruption caused by the
On 5 November 2017 at 06:22, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 7:05 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>>
>> Perhaps typing could switch to being a bundled module, such that it
>> had its own version, independent of the Python standard library
>> version, but was still present by default in n
On 04/11/2017 13:29, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>
> Hello Wolfgang,
>
> On Sat, 4 Nov 2017 12:25:57 +0100 (CET)
> [email protected] wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> one of my long standing ideas to improve Python is to adjust the
>> release cycle and version number handling. In short, to simplify it.
>
> Th
24 matches
Mail list logo
