On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 11:37 PM, Michael Foord <fuzzyman@voidspace.org.uk> wrote:
I don't think it would be good (or necessary) to split this into a separate PEP. PyCon (sprints or language summit) would be a good place to talk about this.
Sure. With a PEP to record decisions this time, we shouldn't get a repeat of the last naming discussion where
I believe the only remaining decision to be made is whether we actually change the "make install" command and the Mac OS X installers for Python 2.7.2, or leave them alone and tell the distro folks to fix it on their side of the fence. My own vote is a +1 for both, since changing "make install" is fairly easy, and Ronald indicated earlier in the thread that not only is the change to the Mac OS X installer pretty trivial, but that Apple are likely to follow the lead of whatever our default installer does.
Martin has also indicated that making appropriate changes to the Windows installer would not be difficult if we agree that changing the 2.7 maintenance branch in this way is appropriate.
True, it's only the more exotic ideas (like trying to do something about the PYTHON* variables or file associations) that become an issue. Simply supporting having a python3 version and a python2 version on PATH at the same time could work by duplicating the main executables (using "python2w" and "python3w" for the non-console variants), with the sysadmin effectively choosing the preferred version of the installed versions based on the directory order in PATH. Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia