On 29/10/2010 01:32, Jeff Hardy wrote:
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.
I'm not sure that losing the history from the repo is such a big loss -
so long as the original repo can remain available as a read only
resource the information isn't "lost", just available elsewhere.
There will be no more features in Python 2.7, not even in the standard
library, now that it is in bugfix only maintenance.
All the best,
Michael
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
--
http://www.voidspace.org.uk/
_______________________________________________
Users mailing list
Users@lists.ironpython.com
http://lists.ironpython.com/listinfo.cgi/users-ironpython.com
