<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 5:13 PM, Eli Stevens (Gmail) <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:wickedgrey@gmail.com">wickedgrey@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div class="im">On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 4:01 PM, Yury Selivanov <<a href="mailto:yselivanov.ml@gmail.com">yselivanov.ml@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> +1 to the question. Why can't it be that way?<br>
<br>
</div>If by "that way" you mean "leave python 2.x behind post 1.6" I'd like<br>
to note that IMO pypy has been under-acknowledged by the wider python<br>
community for a very long time. That's finally starting to change<br>
(pypy production releases, cpython devs devoting resources to make<br>
alternate implementations not second-class citizens, etc.), but by<br>
abandoning the segment of the language with the largest userbase, the<br>
project would go back to niche status again. Yeah, doing so might<br>
position pypy well to become the default python 3 implementation, but<br>
I find it hard to imagine that tacking on another N years until pypy<br>
is a significant percentage of python deployments is going to be good<br>
for the project.<br></blockquote><div><br>There's a large difference between "Abandoning 2.x" and "Starting the ball rolling toward 3.x in a timely manner". If anything, not having a plan for the move to 3.x is more likely to sideline the PyPy project.<br>
<br>BTW, a lot of sites use software that'll ask you which branches you want to check each of your changesets into - IOW, click two buttons and your checkin could go to 2.x and 3.x. I don't know if there's anything free for Mercurial like that.<br>
<br></div></div>