<div dir="ltr">I'd say publishing a high profile installable code with a "python 2.8" name would cause a lot of undesired confusion to start with.<div><br></div><div style>I usually lecture on Python to present the language to college students and I.T. workers - and explaining away the current versioning scheme (use either 2.7 or 3.3) is hard already. Having to add an explanation about a downloadable and installable Python 2.8 that would be incompatible with extensions compiled in Pypi would be tough. and I doubt it could even be done without making your project look bad on the process. </div>
<div style><br></div><div style>Can't you just mark it as "visual studio 2010" version instead?</div><div style><br></div><div style> js</div><div style> -><-</div><div style><br></div><div style><br>
</div><div style><br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 20 November 2013 18:52, Christian Tismer <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:tismer@stackless.com" target="_blank">tismer@stackless.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Howdy friends,<br>
<br>
according to pep 404, there will never be an official Python 2.8.<br>
The migration path is from 2.7 to 3.x.<br>
<br>
I agree with this strategy in almost all consequences but this one:<br>
<br>
Many customers are forced to stick with Python 2.X because of other<br>
products, but they require a Python 2.X version which can be compiled<br>
using Visual Studio 2010 or better.<br>
This is considered an improvement and not a bug fix, where I disagree.<br>
<br>
So I see many Python 2.7 repositories on BB/GH which are hacked to support<br>
VS 2010, but they are not converted with the same quality in mind<br>
that fits our standards.<br>
<br>
<br>
My question<br>
-----------<br>
<br>
I have created a very clean Python 2.7.6+ based CPython with the Stackless<br>
additions, that compiles with VS 2010, using the adapted project structure<br>
of Python 3.3.X, and I want to publish that on the Stackless website as the<br>
official "Stackless Python 2.8". If you consider Stackless as official ;-) .<br>
<br>
This compiler change is currently the only deviation from CPython 2.7,<br>
but we may support a few easy back-ports on customer demand. We don'd add<br>
any random stuff, of course.<br>
<br>
My question is if that is safe to do:<br>
Can I rely on PEP 404 that the "Python 2.8" namespace never will clash<br>
with CPython?<br>
<br>
And if not, what do you suggest then?<br>
It will be submitted by end of November, thanks for your quick responses!<br>
<br>
all the best -- Chris<br>
<br>
-- <br>
Christian Tismer :^) <mailto:<a href="mailto:tismer@stackless.com" target="_blank">tismer@stackless.com</a>><br>
Software Consulting : Have a break! Take a ride on Python's<br>
Karl-Liebknecht-Str. 121 : *Starship* <a href="http://starship.python.net/" target="_blank">http://starship.python.net/</a><br>
14482 Potsdam : PGP key -> <a href="http://pgp.uni-mainz.de" target="_blank">http://pgp.uni-mainz.de</a><br>
phone <a href="tel:%2B49%20173%2024%2018%20776" value="+491732418776" target="_blank">+49 173 24 18 776</a> fax <a href="tel:%2B49%20%2830%29%20700143-0023" value="+49307001430023" target="_blank">+49 (30) 700143-0023</a><br>
PGP 0x57F3BF04 9064 F4E1 D754 C2FF 1619 305B C09C 5A3B 57F3 BF04<br>
whom do you want to sponsor today? <a href="http://www.stackless.com/" target="_blank">http://www.stackless.com/</a><br>
<br>
______________________________<u></u>_________________<br>
Python-Dev mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Python-Dev@python.org" target="_blank">Python-Dev@python.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev" target="_blank">https://mail.python.org/<u></u>mailman/listinfo/python-dev</a><br>
Unsubscribe: <a href="https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/jsbueno%40python.org.br" target="_blank">https://mail.python.org/<u></u>mailman/options/python-dev/<u></u>jsbueno%40python.org.br</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br></div>