On Jan 08, 2014, at 05:39 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
I suspect a 6 month cycle would confuse users and inconvenience redistributors, but a 12—17 month cycle so 3.5 is published before 2.7 enters security fix only mode would make a *lot* of sense.
18 months is already the typical development cycle for new versions of Python, so it would have to be markedly shorter than that. 6-9 months seems about right, and if we adopted that *and* tightly focused new features in 3.5 to those that making porting from Python 2 easier, then I could see that as a reasonable alternative, especially given the realities of the baked-in time constraints for 3.4.
Adding another beta for clinic churn seems entirely reasonable.
So, let's put "Goals for 3.5" on the agenda for the Language Summit.
-Barry