On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 12:16 PM, Vernon Cole <vernondc...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 7:34 AM, Michael Foord <fuzzy...@voidspace.org.uk> > wrote: >> On 28/10/2010 03:53, Steve Dower wrote: >>> Is the plan after 2.7 to start doing 3? That seems like a good >>> opportunity to "start fresh" in a new repository and leave the old >>> stuff where it is, only carrying over the barest minimum. I can't see >>> any movement before 2.7 as being worthwhile. >> >> Interesting question. Ideally we would do parallel development but I'm not >> sure we have the resources for that. > > Python 2.7 is documented to be the LAST of its family. There should not be > very much "development", except perhaps filling out the standard library. > I would say to put 3.n on a fresh hg tree, and back-port anything necessary > into the existing 2.7 tree and infrastructure. No sense in re-inventing that > wheel.
I don't know if I want to lose the history completely, but I'm not sure how much value it has either. Other than that, I'm liking this idea a lot. IronPython 3.2 will be a completely new repo, while 2.7 and below will stay in a legacy one. I don't see there being a ton of major changes to 2.7 anyway, and I doubt it will be around as long as CPython 2.7. IronPython 3 is going to be far more compatible with Python 3 than the 2.x series is. - Jeff _______________________________________________ Users mailing list Users@lists.ironpython.com http://lists.ironpython.com/listinfo.cgi/users-ironpython.com
