On 3 Sep 2014 09:08, "David Reid" <dreid@dreid.org> wrote:
> Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan <at> gmail.com> writes:
> > Creating *new* incompatibilities between Python 2 & Python 3 is a major point
> > of concern.
> Clearly this change should be backported to Python2.

Proposing to break backwards compatibility in a maintenance release would require an *even better* migration story for handling legacy infrastructure. There's a reason the Py3 compatibility break was accompanied by a long term support commitment for Python 2 (and why that commitment was extended another 5 years when it became clear the implications of the binary and text handling were more significant than we originally realised).

It's important to remember that the tech industry in general, and open source focused companies in particular, tend to be amongst the best of the best when it comes to infrastructure management (and we're still pretty terrible at it).

The vast majority of infrastructure in the world *isn't* in the hands of those companies though - it's in the hands of companies where having any kind of computing infrastructure at all is merely a cost of doing business.

Alex's "ridiculous" scenario doesn't sound ridiculous to me - it sounds like a typical corporate computing environment.


> -David
> _______________________________________________
> Python-Dev mailing list
> Python-Dev@python.org
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
> Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/ncoghlan%40gmail.com