<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 09:53, Barry Warsaw <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:barry@python.org">barry@python.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
On Feb 28, 2012, at 08:41 AM, R. David Murray wrote:<br>
<br>
>Hmm. It seems to me that this argument implies that PEP 414 is just<br>
>as likely to *slow down* adoption of Python3 as it is to speed it up,<br>
>since if this issue is as big a barrier as indicated, many potential<br>
>porters may choose to wait until OS vendors are supporting 3.3 widely<br>
>before starting their ports. We are clearly expecting that the reality<br>
>is that the impact will be at worse neutral, and hopefully positive.<br>
<br>
If PEP 414 helps some projects migrate to Python 3, great.<br>
<br>
But I really hope we as a community don't perpetuate the myth that you cannot<br>
port to Python 3 without this, and I hope that we spend as much effort on<br>
educating other Python developers on how to port to Python 3 *right now*<br>
supporting Python 2.6, 2.7, and 3.2. That's the message we should be<br>
spreading and we should be helping developers understand exactly how to do<br>
this effectively, among the many great options that exist today. Only in the<br>
most extreme cases or the most inertially challenged projects should we say<br>
"wait for Python 3.3".<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Well, when the code is committed I will update the porting HOWTO and push the __future__ imports first since they cover more versions of Python (i.e. Python 3.2). But I will mention the options that skip the __future__ imports for those that choose not to use them (or have already done the work of using the u prefix in their code). Plus that doc probably will need an update of caveats that seem to bit everyone (e.g. the str(bytes) thing which I didn't know about) when trying to do source-compatible versions.</div>
</div>