On 1/18/2014 8:13 PM, Neil Schemenauer wrote:
On 2014-01-18, Terry Reedy wrote:
I realize that if there is actual code created, and if it's not under the umbrella of the PSF, it couldn't be called "Python 2.8" due to trademark reasons.
Except I did not. This is part of a quote from Martjin Faasen. You should have left the attribution and quote marks in.
I don't give a shit what it's called. A Python 2 fork is going to happen whether the PSF blesses it or not,
The core developers said years ago that if *other* people want to make a post 2.7 Python, just not called 'Python 2.8' (because we do care), they are free to. We *expect* that there will be commercial support (Red Hat, for instance) at least for keeping 2.7 updated to work on new platforms, perhaps with a few other patches. If you are correct about the tremendous demand for a 'something 2.8', then some group should be able to make money creating and selling it. However, as far as I know, no person and no corporation has yet offered money to PSF or individual core developers to develop a possibly PSF-blessed Python 2.8.
I can't believe that's even a point of discussion.
You are the one who brought it up on *this* list, where is it mostly off-topic, because *this* list is about future Python 3 versions. That was the point of me directing you to Faasen's 'something 2.8' discussion.