On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 3:49 AM, Ian Bicking
On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 5:45 PM, Michael Foord
wrote: On 7 June 2010 22:20, Eric Smith
wrote: Tarek Ziadé wrote:
On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 10:00 PM, Ian Bicking
wrote: On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 2:57 PM, Tarek Ziadé
wrote: If there are important bugs we'll have to work around them. If there are added features we'll have to ignore them. Not for the bug fixes because they will likely to be backported in all versions. (3.3 and 2.7)
Now for new features, if pip uses the latest 2.x and the latest 3.x versions, you will get them. I am not sure why you would have to ignore them. You would probably want to use the new features when they are released, and still make your code work with older versions.
There's no way for the new features to show up in 3.3, is there? You can't add them to a micro release, and you can't replace a module in the standard library. I think that's Ian's point.
But that's no different to pip using *any* standard library module. If you want to support Python 2.4 you can't use os.path.relpath (or you have to provide it yourself anyway) for example.
This is part of why I don't care about reforming or modifying what's in the standard library now -- I know the constraints well, and they can't be changed. I'm solely concerned about new functionality which need not repeat this pattern.
Are you suggesting to freeze the stdlib development ? So you don't have to deal with different Python version at your level ? If so, that doesn't sound right because making the "batteries included" evolve is part (imho) of the Python spirit, and the constraints we are talking about right now is not a huge problem as you seem to think in my opinion. I don't find it extremely hard to cope with various Python version.
-- Ian Bicking | http://blog.ianbicking.org
_______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas
-- Tarek Ziadé | http://ziade.org