On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 10:24 AM, Stephan Richter <stephan.rich...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Monday, April 29, 2013 09:48:05 AM Jim Fulton wrote: >> I'd like there to a stable 4.0 release **soon** >> that doesn't use zodbpickle for Python 2. > > I would like to agree. But on the other hand, the ZODB release cycles are very > long and the prospect of waiting another 6-12 months before any Python 3 > support lands, is really scary because it prohibits me to even write a new > project in Python 3.
As stated here: https://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zodb-dev/2012-October/014770.html I was hoping that the breakup of the ZODB packages would allow us to increase the tempo of releases. But increasing tempo is only possible of master is stable. > (CH has just invested about 6 man-months into the porting > effort and without ZODB we are basically stuck. But we do not need a > transition > plan, since we can recreate our ZODBs from configuration files.) > > Could we compromise and support Python 3 in ZODB 4.0 without necessarily solve > all the migration strategy issues? I suggested that in the part fo my email that you snipped. > In fact, by using zodbpickle, zodbpickle > can have a separate, faster release cycle experimenting with some transition > strategies. Maybe one way to install ZODB 4.0 would be to not use zodbpickle > and use cPickle instead. We already have all that stuff separated into a > _compat module, so that should not be too hard. Right. As I suggested, let's get to a point where we can get a stable ZODB 4.0 release for Python 2. As soon as we get that, let's get a ZODB 4.0.x or 4.1 release that works on Python 3, presumably via zodbpickle. While we want to make progress on Python 3, we can't hold ZODB hostage to the Python 3 porting effort. Jim -- Jim Fulton http://www.linkedin.com/in/jimfulton _______________________________________________ For more information about ZODB, see http://zodb.org/ ZODB-Dev mailing list - ZODB-Dev@zope.org https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zodb-dev
