Hi, I remember a discussion to make docs.python.org pointed to py3k docs by default. Are we still going to do that? - Yury
On 10/26/2012 4:47 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
Eventually, but not just yet :)
I think it should already have been done. To not feature our latest release on the page where the latest releases have always before been featured is to say that it is somehow not a full production-ready release. -- Terry Jan Reedy
On 26Oct2012 18:22, Devin Jeanpierre <jeanpierreda@gmail.com> wrote: | On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 6:15 PM, Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> wrote: | > I think it should already have been done. To not feature our latest release | > on the page where the latest releases have always before been featured is to | > say that it is somehow not a full production-ready release. | | There were times when 3.1 and 3.2 were the latest releases, and they | have never been featured there. They were also production ready. That's Terry's point: by not featuring them there we're insinuating that they were not production ready... -- Cameron Simpson <cs@zip.com.au> You can blip it twice to clear the bore, But blip it thrice, and you've sinned once more. - Tom Warner <tom@dfind.demon.co.uk>
On 10/26/2012 6:46 PM, Cameron Simpson wrote:
3.1 came out in between 2.6 and 2.7 and one could argue that it was still somewhat a trial version and that switching back and forth (2.6, 3.1, 2.7) would not be a good idea. 3.2 came out 8 months after 2.7. I would have made the switch then, but I acknowledge that one could argue that 2.7 had not had its 18-24 months in the sun, and that 3.2 still lacked 3rd party library support.
That's Terry's point: by not featuring them there we're insinuating that they were not production ready...
3.3 is now out 29 months after 2.7, library support is much improved, and the new unicode implementation fixes most to almost all the remaining problems with unicode. It is a release we can be proud of and should promote as the latest and greatest Python version. -- Terry Jan Reedy
On 2012-10-26, at 10:55 PM, Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> wrote:
3.3 is now out 29 months after 2.7, library support is much improved, and the new unicode implementation fixes most to almost all the remaining problems with unicode. It is a release we can be proud of and should promote as the latest and greatest Python version.
I feel the same. On the one hand I understand position to keep 2.7 as default here and there, as it's currently used more; but on the other, here is what we have: - default documentation page - 2.7 - python.org home page: New to Python or choosing between Python 2 and Python 3? Read Python 2 or Python 3 - python.org downloads: -- The current production versions are Python 2.7.3 and Python 3.3.0. -- If you don't know which version to use, start with Python 2.7; more existing third party software is compatible with Python 2 than Python 3 right now. -- First links to downloads - 2.7 Isn't it too much of python 2? What is the impression after all of this? Python 2.7 is the current and recommended version. I think that the message should be clear, and after 3 years it's time to say that python 3 is always the preferred way. After all, people are not dumb, if they use python 2 they can go and download it, and they certainly can find docs for it as well. - Yury
On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 2:46 PM, Yury Selivanov <yselivanov.ml@gmail.com> wrote:
The message is clear, but some people just don't like the current message: Python 2 is still the recommended default version for production systems and applications. - most hosting services (including Platform-as-a-Service providers with a Python option) only offer Python 2 - Fedora, RHEL and derivatives still require Python 2 for all their system utilities (Ubuntu at least has migrated their core system tools, but I don't know about Debian upstream) - Django does not yet have a released version that supports Python 3 (and even once 1.5 final is out the door, the Python 3 support is technically classed as experimental until 1.6) - graphics support in Python 3 is still a little sketchy in some regards, but clearly improving (pygame and various GUI libraries like pyside already work, pyglet has an alpha version, there's no PIL/Pillow release, but there are working forks [1]) I don't think the ecosystem is to the point where it makes sense to flip the switch just yet, but I do think it would be reasonable to define the ecosystem state where we *will* flip the switch. The two key missing pieces for me are: - a Django release with non-experimental Python 3 support (i.e. likely to happen with Django 1.6) - an official release of PIL (or Pillow) that supports Python 3 (Why do I include those, and not Twisted? Because if you're a capable enough developer to cope with Twisted, you're going to be able to cope with the move from 3.3 back to 2.7) Cheers, Nick. [1] http://mail.python.org/pipermail/image-sig/2012-October/007080.html -- Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia
On 2012-10-27, at 1:15 AM, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan@gmail.com> wrote:
One last thought (no need to reply if you disagree). What if it's all "chicken or the egg" problem? Maybe the right strategy is not to hide python 2 from everywhere and start actively promoting py3k, but to push it gradually? Start with docs switching to py3k by default. That shouldn't be harmful (and I hope that my docs theme patch will be accepted soon). A bit later, when Django finally adds python 3 support - change python.org homepage with a more prominent advice to use py3d. Etc. Thanks, Yury
On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 3:44 PM, Yury Selivanov <yselivanov.ml@gmail.com> wrote:
Start with docs switching to py3k by default. That shouldn't be harmful (and I hope that my docs theme patch will be accepted soon).
Actually, there are at least a few very real harms that come from switching the docs over: 1. Many third party Python 2 tutorials include links to our docs. We can't magically reach out to those sites and update their links, so they will end up linking to Python 3 resources from Python 2 ones 2. It breaks links on sites like Stack Overflow and in mailing list archives and our own bug tracker, which currently link to the main docs to explain Python 2 behaviour 3. it completely breaks direct hyperlinks to names that no longer exist in Python 3 (even the ones that exist under new names). I'm actually wondering if docs.python.org should be updated *now* with a rewrite rule that redirects to a more explicit docs.python.org/2.x/ URL. At the moment, there is no easy way to get hold of a stable URL for the Python 2 docs, and nothing we can put in any advance announcement of a migration to say something like: "docs.python.org will switch to displaying the Python 3 documentation by default in June 2013. Please update any direct links that are intended to refer specifically to the Python 2 documentation by including a leading '/2.x/' in the path component of the URL. For example, 'http://docs.python.org/library/os' would become 'http://docs.python.org/2.x/library/os'. Between now and the migration in June 2013, affected links will be automatically redirected to the new stable Python 2.x URLs". So that's my concrete proposal: 1. We pick a date (June next year sounds about right) 2. We pick a stable URL prefix for the Python 2 docs (I vote "/2.x/") 3. We start redirecting affected pages immediately 4. We add a notice like the one above to the home page of the 2.7 docs, announce it on the PSF blog, announce it far and wide Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia
On Saturday, October 27, 2012 at 2:22 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
+1 Can we change /py3k/ to /3.x/ and redirect the old one to match? Another idea is similar, but instead of doing /2.x/ always redirect the the root of docs.python.org to the latest production release, so right now /foo would redirect to /2.7/foo. This is even better for maintaining links to the actual resource people meant to link to. Could even include a header at the top of old versions saying that "You are currently viewing the docs for 2.5. Click here to view the docs for 2.7".
On 27 October 2012 08:11, Donald Stufft <donald.stufft@gmail.com> wrote:
+1 also.
Can we change /py3k/ to /3.x/ and redirect the old one to match?
+1. I'm sorry, but now that Python 3 is up to 3.3, and is a really solid version, the "py3k" name doesn't feel "official" enough.
-1. Certainly what I (and I suspect many others) usually care about is getting at the "Python 2" or "Python 3" documentation, not a specific version. Having the 2.7, 2.6 links is fine, but I don't *think* of myself as going to the 2.7 docs, but rather to the 2.x docs (as opposed to 3.x). The "New in x.y" annotations give me the history I need. And I think that's true of links as well - they would be to "python 2" or "python 3", not (normally) to a specific minor version. Paul.
On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 12:06:41 +0100 Paul Moore <p.f.moore@gmail.com> wrote:
I'm not sure why you're -1 about something which wouldn't affect you negatively. As you say yourself, the 2.7 docs have all the information you need about previous releases as well (because of the versionadded and versionchanged markers). *However*, the 2.6 and previous docs don't have information about useful stuff added in 2.7. And since 2.7 is the last in the 2.x line, I think it makes sense to reflect that explicitly in the redirections. Regards Antoine.
On 27 October 2012 12:43, Antoine Pitrou <solipsis@pitrou.net> wrote:
Maybe I misunderstood. I was assuming that there would be no "2.x" link, only "2.7". That's what I'm against - I would prefer to use a generic 2.x link to get to the Python 2 docs if I needed them (just as I use docs.python.org at the moment). My -1 was too strong though, make that a -0 (and a "don't care" if there will be a 2.x link as well as the explicit ones).
And since 2.7 is the last in the 2.x line, I think it makes sense to reflect that explicitly in the redirections.
I'm not against an explicit 2.7 link - we have that already, don't we? Paul
On Oct 27, 2012, at 8:21 AM, Paul Moore <p.f.moore@gmail.com> wrote:
Did this change recently? I just noticed that from http://www.python.org/doc/ if I click "Browse Current Documentation" under then Python 2.x section, it links to docs.python.org which then redirects to docs.python.org/3/ which is NOT the 2.x current documentation for which I clicked. -- Jay
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 11:22 PM, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan@gmail.com> wrote:
And many tutorials are not intentionally version specific.
However, just because stack overflow and other sites link to 2.x docs doesn't mean that the user wants to read the 2.x docs. Scenario: I'm using 3.x, I go to stack overflow to find out how to do something. it links to the docs for the old version which is inaccurate for me. What I want is to be able to quickly get to the doc that's relevant to *my* version.
3. it completely breaks direct hyperlinks to names that no longer exist in Python 3 (even the ones that exist under new names)
Urls for things that have been renamed should redirect to the appropriate pages (whether docs on the new thing or an explanation of why this feature doesn't exist in that version). This should work both forwards (2.x feature renamed in 3.x) and backwards (3.x feature doesn't exist in 2.x)
So that's my concrete proposal:
1. We pick a date (June next year sounds about right)
I think this following proposal provides a better user experience. If you don't think this is better, why? 2. Pick a stable url for docs and a way for referrers to select the referenced version when that matters Examples: (a) http://docs.python.org/dev/library/os.html#os.walk -- displays user's preferred version (see below) (b) http://docs.python.org/dev/library/os.html?version=2.7#os.walk -- displays version 2.7 if user does not have user's preferred version (c) http://docs.python.org/dev/library/os.html?exactversion=2.7#os.walk-- always displays version 2.7 (discouraged unless talking specifically about that version) 3. All the pages have a version picker (as previously discussed). The dropdown to pick a version number could also have a way to pick the user's preferred version and save it in a cookie. 4. Make the version number more prominent in case (c) so user will be aware that they are not seeing their preferred version. --- Bruce
On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 6:02 PM, Bruce Leban <bruce@leapyear.org> wrote:
We can already reference exact versions: http://docs.python.org/2.6/library/os http://docs.python.org/2.7/library/os http://docs.python.org/3.2/library/os http://docs.python.org/3.3/library/os For non-current releases, those will redirect to the appropriate release-specific URL, for the two current releases, it will redirect to the stable "latest release" URL. The problem is the current stable URLs for "latest Python 2" and "latest Python 3" are respectively: http://docs.python.org/library/os http://docs.python.org/py3k/library/os (despite comments elsewhere in the thread, "py3k" does *not* resolve to the dev docs - those use the "/dev/" prefix in the path component) It was suggested previously (i.e. more than a year ago) that it would be better if 2.x/3.x worked as expected so people could update their links appropriately, and I thought we had agreement on making that change, but I guess nobody with server access agreed that was the case (there's no ticket tracker currently in place for the python.org infrastructure). Note that I am deliberately limiting my suggestions to those which require nothing new in the docs theming, just updates to the URL handling in the web server. Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia
On 27.10.2012 08:22, Nick Coghlan wrote:
Why "/2.x/" and not just "/2/" ?
3. We start redirecting affected pages immediately
I think we should do the same for all Python 3 resources, i.e. have "/library/os.html" redirect to "/3/library/os.html" so that we don't run into the same problem again in the future.
4. We add a notice like the one above to the home page of the 2.7 docs, announce it on the PSF blog, announce it far and wide
We also need a solution for URLs that exist for Python 2, but not for Python 3. Those should be redirected to the Python 2 resource automatically, e.g. URLs pointing to the Python 2 modules that were renamed in Python 3. BTW: Will you write up a PEP for this ? -- Marc-Andre Lemburg eGenix.com Professional Python Services directly from the Source (#1, Oct 27 2012)
2012-10-29: PyCon DE 2012, Leipzig, Germany ... 2 days to go ::: Try our new mxODBC.Connect Python Database Interface for free ! :::: eGenix.com Software, Skills and Services GmbH Pastor-Loeh-Str.48 D-40764 Langenfeld, Germany. CEO Dipl.-Math. Marc-Andre Lemburg Registered at Amtsgericht Duesseldorf: HRB 46611 http://www.egenix.com/company/contact/
On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 8:54 PM, M.-A. Lemburg <mal@egenix.com> wrote:
I find the /2/ vs /3/ too easy to miss in the middle of a full URL, whereas I find the extra space to the right of the number in /2.x/ vs /3.x/ makes them easier to separate. However, in writing up the PEP, I discovered it was annoyingly ambiguous whether "/2.x/" specifically meant that URL, or whether it meant "/2.7/" and friends, so I switched to the shorter form.
In writing up the PEP, I rediscovered an old proposal of mine to avoid breaking deep links by simply do a "documented deprecation" of unqualified deep links, but otherwise leaving them pointing to Python 2. Only the default landing page would be switched to Python 3. Since that approach avoids a *lot* of issues, that's what I ended writing up.
Committed as PEP 430, should show up http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0430 before too long. Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia
On 2012-10-27, at 10:40 AM, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan@gmail.com> wrote:
Committed as PEP 430, should show up http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0430 before too long.
I like the PEP, Nick. - Yury
On 10/27/2012 11:53 AM, Yury Selivanov wrote:
It looks good to me also. I agree that breaking the existing non-specific deep links is a problem. As I understand the proposal, browser bars would only display version- or at least series-specific links so that future copy and paste of links would do the right thing for the indefinite future. -- Terry Jan Reedy
On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 5:59 PM, Georg Brandl <g.brandl@gmx.net> wrote:
Heh, asking you to do that was next on my list, so thanks. Did Guido hide a mind reading device in the time machine? :)
I'll work on fixing the Apache config.
Huzzah \o/ Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia
On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 7:22 AM, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan@gmail.com> wrote:
As a data point, MIT's '6.00x Introduction to Computer Science and Programming' EdX online course contains many links of the form "http://docs.python.org/library/...". I don't have exact numbers, but judging by the EPD download numbers we've been seeing there are definitely thousands of students, and probably tens of thousands, taking that course. Switching docs.python.org without a generous warning period would not be a good idea for those students. -- Mark
On 27.10.2012 13:34, Mark Dickinson wrote:
Wouldn't it be possible to leave the non-versioned URLs redirecting to the Python 2 versions for say another 5 years and instead have the base URL http://docs.python.org/ provide links to either the Python 2 or 3 version (perhaps even listing the various available minor versions) ? That would avoid the issue of having existing course material on the web fail to work after just one year. At PyCon UK we discussed these issues with teachers and people interested in getting Python on the UK teaching plan. Their main concern was that text books and course material have a much longer life period than just 18 months. For them it's very important to have a stable release of both Python and its documentation that remains valid for at least 5 years. I hope that Python 3.x has stabilized enough now with the 3.3 release that it can become the basis for such materials. In any case, if we want Python 3 to be picked up in such environments, we cannot easily go about breaking things like URLs to documentation and will have to settle on a stable approach soon. -- Marc-Andre Lemburg eGenix.com Professional Python Services directly from the Source (#1, Oct 27 2012)
2012-10-29: PyCon DE 2012, Leipzig, Germany ... 2 days to go ::: Try our new mxODBC.Connect Python Database Interface for free ! :::: eGenix.com Software, Skills and Services GmbH Pastor-Loeh-Str.48 D-40764 Langenfeld, Germany. CEO Dipl.-Math. Marc-Andre Lemburg Registered at Amtsgericht Duesseldorf: HRB 46611 http://www.egenix.com/company/contact/
On Oct 27, 2012, at 03:15 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
I would hedge that and say that for new work where you have your Python 3 dependencies available, Python 3 should be the recommended default. In Ubuntu, we are actively porting our core system utilities to Python 3, but some dependencies stop us for getting all the way there. Xapian and Twisted come to mind, but the Twisted folks are making great progress, so I expect that for our Twisted apps at least, that story will be better soon. Python 3.3 has some very clear advantages, so we are pushing to make that the default leading up to Ubuntu 14.04 LTS.
Debian Wheezy is in freeze so I wouldn't expect a lot of adoption there until after that's released. Then I hope that we'll be able to push those things upstream.
One way to look at it is that there doesn't necessary have to be just one big switch. There's a big bank of switches, many of which can be flipped now. Yes, I'd love for the whole line of 'em to be Python 3 green, and eventually they will be, but if you don't need Django or PIL (or whatever still isn't ported yet), don't wait, port! Cheers, -Barry
Barry Warsaw writes:
As stated, yes, very much so. I think it's unfortunate that some of this discussion has generated more heat than light because there are three different goals here all stemming from "promoting Python 3": (1) "... as a great language", (2) "... as a great production-ready development environment" (for *some* applications), and (3) "... as a great production-ready development environment" (period, or to take a page from Linus's book, "World Domination! Now!") I think Nick's approach starts to phase in a change in promotion effort appropriately. But it's only a start.
Stephen J. Turnbull <stephen@xemacs.org> wrote:
I think Nick's approach starts to phase in a change in promotion effort appropriately. But it's only a start.
As for promotion, I just noticed that searching for "Python 3" gives this as the first result: http://www.python.org/download/releases/3.0/ Overall, the (Google) search results on the first page don't look very inviting, so perhaps we could improve the situation by adding "nofollow" to the older release pages. Stefan Krah
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 8:36 PM, Stefan Krah <stefan@bytereef.org> wrote:
The second result is the current docs at http://docs.python.org/3.3/, which is pretty useful, *except* that the docs have no pointer to the corresponding release page. Perhaps the existing "Welcome" paragraph should be extended with a reference to the appropriate release page? (Also: very nice work to everyone that helped make the version switcher a reality) Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia
Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan@gmail.com> wrote:
I think that's probably not necessary. Someone who is really searching for the newest version will of course find it. Getting rid of 3.0 in the top search results is more of an image thing. 3.0 is associated with "this new experimental version with virtually no packages that support it". For the casual searcher who might be trying to decide between Python and other languages it would be nice to have more 3.3 links, hopefully sending the message "a better Python with many more features and Django/Twisted support just around the corner".
(Also: very nice work to everyone that helped make the version switcher a reality)
I agree, the docs.python.org changes are a great improvement. Thanks everyone. Stefan Krah
On Oct 26, 2012, at 4:55 AM, Ned Batchelder <ned@nedbatchelder.com> wrote:
Before we do anything to make py3 the default, let's please provide a navigation bar that shows the version, and makes it easy to switch between versions? Py2 is still vastly more used.
+1 I can't count how many times I've been on the right page, but the wrong version, and need to switch.
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 9:31 AM, Ryan D Hiebert <ryan@ryanhiebert.com> wrote:
I believe the primary issue filed for this is here: http://bugs.python.org/issue8040 --Chris
On 10/26/2012 6:22 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
I'm not suggesting having py2 as the default, just providing an easy way to get to them. I can read 2.7 docs and figure out how 2.6 works from them much more easily than I can read 3.3 docs and figure out how 2.7 works.
For beginners learning Python in classes, I suspect Python 3 is more used. (I certainly hope so ;-).
Hmm, I don't think that's true just yet. --Ned.
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 6:22 PM, Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> wrote:
For beginners learning Python in classes, I suspect Python 3 is more used. (I certainly hope so ;-).
Instructors have their own kind of inertia. If they change major versions, they no longer get to reuse old slides, they have to rewrite old assignments, upgrade the automated test systems, and even just plain learn Python 3, which is a challenge of its own (albeit a small one.) Remember also that must non-research instructors are vastly overworked, and most research professors aren't exactly eager to burn lots of time in course preparation either, since their job is not to teach but to research. Considering that the differences between Python 2 and 3 are irrelevant for nearly any educational context, what's the payoff? The move is just something they have to do eventually because of bug support reasons, not something they are eager to do except out of some kind of enthusiasm (which, admittedly, instructors often have -- shiny is shiny.) My university (the University of Toronto) has switched to Python 3 for their new Coursera courses, because they involved writing material from scratch anyway, so might as well make it futureproof. The regular classes taught inside the university itself still use Python 2.7 (actually, they used Python 2.5 until the upgrade process a year and a half ago, which I was a part of), and other than the coursera work, as far as I am aware, no moves have been made to switch to Python 3. They might also switch to another language entirely instead. They used Racket in a couple of introductory courses last year, and I've heard good things from faculty and students involved. It's a more viable decision than it used to be, since a lot of work has to be done regardless to switch to Python 3, so the inertial reason of staying with Python is diminished. I don't think this will happen near-term, because they're still investing in Python, but it was nice to see that they were breaking out of their rut and trying new things. -- Devin
On Oct 26, 2012, at 4:36 PM, Devin Jeanpierre <jeanpierreda@gmail.com> wrote:
For beginners learning Python in classes, I suspect Python 3 is more used. (I certainly hope so ;-).
I've been teaching quite a bit this year. Python 3 isn't being used at all (by any of my clients or by any of the other instructors I know who are teaching Python). Raymond
On 2012-10-26, at 7:55 AM, Ned Batchelder <ned@nedbatchelder.com> wrote:
OK. I've just created an issue http://bugs.python.org/issue16331 with a working patch attached to it. Docs will look like this: https://dl.dropbox.com/u/21052/python/p3_doc_dd.png Please check it out! Thanks, Yury
Am 26.10.2012 01:50, schrieb Yury Selivanov:
How about http://docs2.python.org for the latest stable version of Python 2.x and http://docs3.python.org for the latest stable of Python 3.x? The py3k docs traditionally point to the latest development version. Christian
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 10:46 AM, Yury Selivanov <yselivanov.ml@gmail.com>wrote:
There are tons of links out there that would break if you switched to docs2 and docs3. JS is better. And it would accommodate a feature where a user can set a preference of what version of python documentation they want to see rather than defaulting to 2.7 or 3.x. --- Bruce Follow me: http://www.twitter.com/Vroo http://www.vroospeak.com
Am 26.10.2012 19:56, schrieb Bruce Leban:
We can have the FQDNs additionally to http://docs.python.org and have them as mnemonic for the correct Python 2.x or 3.x docs. It's easy to create an Apache rewrite rule that redirects the user to the proper documents. RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} =docs3.python.org [NC] RewriteRule ^/(.*) http://docs.python.org/release/3.3.0/$1 [R=301,L] Yury, I'm not arguing against your JS UI -- I actually like it. I like to have both. Christian
On 2012-10-26, at 2:04 PM, Christian Heimes <christian@python.org> wrote:
Thanks ;) The thing about 'doc2' & 'doc3' urls I don't like is that sooner or later users will use python 3. There is no future for python 2. That's why I think that it's better to have just one main doc destination that everybody knows, uses, and posts links to. Just my 2 cents. - Yury
On 26/10/2012 19:09, Yury Selivanov wrote:
I entirely agree with your sentiments. Complaints along the lines of "but library xyz isn't compatible with Python 3" should be met with a response from the Python community "what can we do to fix this situation". A very personnal preference, but I would like to see this happening rather than having people playing with new toys, like the Async API. YMMV. -- Cheers. Mark Lawrence.
Yury Selivanov writes:
The thing about 'doc2' & 'doc3' urls I don't like is that sooner or later users will use python 3. There is no future for python 2.
That's true for each user (assuming they don't die before switching). It's not true for all applications, though. There will undoubtedly be systems based on Python 2 still in active, profitable use 10 years from now. It's just a yucky UI, let's stick to that for a reason.
On 10/26/2012 4:47 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
Eventually, but not just yet :)
I think it should already have been done. To not feature our latest release on the page where the latest releases have always before been featured is to say that it is somehow not a full production-ready release. -- Terry Jan Reedy
On 26Oct2012 18:22, Devin Jeanpierre <jeanpierreda@gmail.com> wrote: | On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 6:15 PM, Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> wrote: | > I think it should already have been done. To not feature our latest release | > on the page where the latest releases have always before been featured is to | > say that it is somehow not a full production-ready release. | | There were times when 3.1 and 3.2 were the latest releases, and they | have never been featured there. They were also production ready. That's Terry's point: by not featuring them there we're insinuating that they were not production ready... -- Cameron Simpson <cs@zip.com.au> You can blip it twice to clear the bore, But blip it thrice, and you've sinned once more. - Tom Warner <tom@dfind.demon.co.uk>
On 10/26/2012 6:46 PM, Cameron Simpson wrote:
3.1 came out in between 2.6 and 2.7 and one could argue that it was still somewhat a trial version and that switching back and forth (2.6, 3.1, 2.7) would not be a good idea. 3.2 came out 8 months after 2.7. I would have made the switch then, but I acknowledge that one could argue that 2.7 had not had its 18-24 months in the sun, and that 3.2 still lacked 3rd party library support.
That's Terry's point: by not featuring them there we're insinuating that they were not production ready...
3.3 is now out 29 months after 2.7, library support is much improved, and the new unicode implementation fixes most to almost all the remaining problems with unicode. It is a release we can be proud of and should promote as the latest and greatest Python version. -- Terry Jan Reedy
On 2012-10-26, at 10:55 PM, Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> wrote:
3.3 is now out 29 months after 2.7, library support is much improved, and the new unicode implementation fixes most to almost all the remaining problems with unicode. It is a release we can be proud of and should promote as the latest and greatest Python version.
I feel the same. On the one hand I understand position to keep 2.7 as default here and there, as it's currently used more; but on the other, here is what we have: - default documentation page - 2.7 - python.org home page: New to Python or choosing between Python 2 and Python 3? Read Python 2 or Python 3 - python.org downloads: -- The current production versions are Python 2.7.3 and Python 3.3.0. -- If you don't know which version to use, start with Python 2.7; more existing third party software is compatible with Python 2 than Python 3 right now. -- First links to downloads - 2.7 Isn't it too much of python 2? What is the impression after all of this? Python 2.7 is the current and recommended version. I think that the message should be clear, and after 3 years it's time to say that python 3 is always the preferred way. After all, people are not dumb, if they use python 2 they can go and download it, and they certainly can find docs for it as well. - Yury
On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 2:46 PM, Yury Selivanov <yselivanov.ml@gmail.com> wrote:
The message is clear, but some people just don't like the current message: Python 2 is still the recommended default version for production systems and applications. - most hosting services (including Platform-as-a-Service providers with a Python option) only offer Python 2 - Fedora, RHEL and derivatives still require Python 2 for all their system utilities (Ubuntu at least has migrated their core system tools, but I don't know about Debian upstream) - Django does not yet have a released version that supports Python 3 (and even once 1.5 final is out the door, the Python 3 support is technically classed as experimental until 1.6) - graphics support in Python 3 is still a little sketchy in some regards, but clearly improving (pygame and various GUI libraries like pyside already work, pyglet has an alpha version, there's no PIL/Pillow release, but there are working forks [1]) I don't think the ecosystem is to the point where it makes sense to flip the switch just yet, but I do think it would be reasonable to define the ecosystem state where we *will* flip the switch. The two key missing pieces for me are: - a Django release with non-experimental Python 3 support (i.e. likely to happen with Django 1.6) - an official release of PIL (or Pillow) that supports Python 3 (Why do I include those, and not Twisted? Because if you're a capable enough developer to cope with Twisted, you're going to be able to cope with the move from 3.3 back to 2.7) Cheers, Nick. [1] http://mail.python.org/pipermail/image-sig/2012-October/007080.html -- Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia
On 2012-10-27, at 1:15 AM, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan@gmail.com> wrote:
One last thought (no need to reply if you disagree). What if it's all "chicken or the egg" problem? Maybe the right strategy is not to hide python 2 from everywhere and start actively promoting py3k, but to push it gradually? Start with docs switching to py3k by default. That shouldn't be harmful (and I hope that my docs theme patch will be accepted soon). A bit later, when Django finally adds python 3 support - change python.org homepage with a more prominent advice to use py3d. Etc. Thanks, Yury
On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 3:44 PM, Yury Selivanov <yselivanov.ml@gmail.com> wrote:
Start with docs switching to py3k by default. That shouldn't be harmful (and I hope that my docs theme patch will be accepted soon).
Actually, there are at least a few very real harms that come from switching the docs over: 1. Many third party Python 2 tutorials include links to our docs. We can't magically reach out to those sites and update their links, so they will end up linking to Python 3 resources from Python 2 ones 2. It breaks links on sites like Stack Overflow and in mailing list archives and our own bug tracker, which currently link to the main docs to explain Python 2 behaviour 3. it completely breaks direct hyperlinks to names that no longer exist in Python 3 (even the ones that exist under new names). I'm actually wondering if docs.python.org should be updated *now* with a rewrite rule that redirects to a more explicit docs.python.org/2.x/ URL. At the moment, there is no easy way to get hold of a stable URL for the Python 2 docs, and nothing we can put in any advance announcement of a migration to say something like: "docs.python.org will switch to displaying the Python 3 documentation by default in June 2013. Please update any direct links that are intended to refer specifically to the Python 2 documentation by including a leading '/2.x/' in the path component of the URL. For example, 'http://docs.python.org/library/os' would become 'http://docs.python.org/2.x/library/os'. Between now and the migration in June 2013, affected links will be automatically redirected to the new stable Python 2.x URLs". So that's my concrete proposal: 1. We pick a date (June next year sounds about right) 2. We pick a stable URL prefix for the Python 2 docs (I vote "/2.x/") 3. We start redirecting affected pages immediately 4. We add a notice like the one above to the home page of the 2.7 docs, announce it on the PSF blog, announce it far and wide Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia
On Saturday, October 27, 2012 at 2:22 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
+1 Can we change /py3k/ to /3.x/ and redirect the old one to match? Another idea is similar, but instead of doing /2.x/ always redirect the the root of docs.python.org to the latest production release, so right now /foo would redirect to /2.7/foo. This is even better for maintaining links to the actual resource people meant to link to. Could even include a header at the top of old versions saying that "You are currently viewing the docs for 2.5. Click here to view the docs for 2.7".
On 27 October 2012 08:11, Donald Stufft <donald.stufft@gmail.com> wrote:
+1 also.
Can we change /py3k/ to /3.x/ and redirect the old one to match?
+1. I'm sorry, but now that Python 3 is up to 3.3, and is a really solid version, the "py3k" name doesn't feel "official" enough.
-1. Certainly what I (and I suspect many others) usually care about is getting at the "Python 2" or "Python 3" documentation, not a specific version. Having the 2.7, 2.6 links is fine, but I don't *think* of myself as going to the 2.7 docs, but rather to the 2.x docs (as opposed to 3.x). The "New in x.y" annotations give me the history I need. And I think that's true of links as well - they would be to "python 2" or "python 3", not (normally) to a specific minor version. Paul.
On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 12:06:41 +0100 Paul Moore <p.f.moore@gmail.com> wrote:
I'm not sure why you're -1 about something which wouldn't affect you negatively. As you say yourself, the 2.7 docs have all the information you need about previous releases as well (because of the versionadded and versionchanged markers). *However*, the 2.6 and previous docs don't have information about useful stuff added in 2.7. And since 2.7 is the last in the 2.x line, I think it makes sense to reflect that explicitly in the redirections. Regards Antoine.
On 27 October 2012 12:43, Antoine Pitrou <solipsis@pitrou.net> wrote:
Maybe I misunderstood. I was assuming that there would be no "2.x" link, only "2.7". That's what I'm against - I would prefer to use a generic 2.x link to get to the Python 2 docs if I needed them (just as I use docs.python.org at the moment). My -1 was too strong though, make that a -0 (and a "don't care" if there will be a 2.x link as well as the explicit ones).
And since 2.7 is the last in the 2.x line, I think it makes sense to reflect that explicitly in the redirections.
I'm not against an explicit 2.7 link - we have that already, don't we? Paul
On Oct 27, 2012, at 8:21 AM, Paul Moore <p.f.moore@gmail.com> wrote:
Did this change recently? I just noticed that from http://www.python.org/doc/ if I click "Browse Current Documentation" under then Python 2.x section, it links to docs.python.org which then redirects to docs.python.org/3/ which is NOT the 2.x current documentation for which I clicked. -- Jay
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 11:22 PM, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan@gmail.com> wrote:
And many tutorials are not intentionally version specific.
However, just because stack overflow and other sites link to 2.x docs doesn't mean that the user wants to read the 2.x docs. Scenario: I'm using 3.x, I go to stack overflow to find out how to do something. it links to the docs for the old version which is inaccurate for me. What I want is to be able to quickly get to the doc that's relevant to *my* version.
3. it completely breaks direct hyperlinks to names that no longer exist in Python 3 (even the ones that exist under new names)
Urls for things that have been renamed should redirect to the appropriate pages (whether docs on the new thing or an explanation of why this feature doesn't exist in that version). This should work both forwards (2.x feature renamed in 3.x) and backwards (3.x feature doesn't exist in 2.x)
So that's my concrete proposal:
1. We pick a date (June next year sounds about right)
I think this following proposal provides a better user experience. If you don't think this is better, why? 2. Pick a stable url for docs and a way for referrers to select the referenced version when that matters Examples: (a) http://docs.python.org/dev/library/os.html#os.walk -- displays user's preferred version (see below) (b) http://docs.python.org/dev/library/os.html?version=2.7#os.walk -- displays version 2.7 if user does not have user's preferred version (c) http://docs.python.org/dev/library/os.html?exactversion=2.7#os.walk-- always displays version 2.7 (discouraged unless talking specifically about that version) 3. All the pages have a version picker (as previously discussed). The dropdown to pick a version number could also have a way to pick the user's preferred version and save it in a cookie. 4. Make the version number more prominent in case (c) so user will be aware that they are not seeing their preferred version. --- Bruce
On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 6:02 PM, Bruce Leban <bruce@leapyear.org> wrote:
We can already reference exact versions: http://docs.python.org/2.6/library/os http://docs.python.org/2.7/library/os http://docs.python.org/3.2/library/os http://docs.python.org/3.3/library/os For non-current releases, those will redirect to the appropriate release-specific URL, for the two current releases, it will redirect to the stable "latest release" URL. The problem is the current stable URLs for "latest Python 2" and "latest Python 3" are respectively: http://docs.python.org/library/os http://docs.python.org/py3k/library/os (despite comments elsewhere in the thread, "py3k" does *not* resolve to the dev docs - those use the "/dev/" prefix in the path component) It was suggested previously (i.e. more than a year ago) that it would be better if 2.x/3.x worked as expected so people could update their links appropriately, and I thought we had agreement on making that change, but I guess nobody with server access agreed that was the case (there's no ticket tracker currently in place for the python.org infrastructure). Note that I am deliberately limiting my suggestions to those which require nothing new in the docs theming, just updates to the URL handling in the web server. Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia
On 27.10.2012 08:22, Nick Coghlan wrote:
Why "/2.x/" and not just "/2/" ?
3. We start redirecting affected pages immediately
I think we should do the same for all Python 3 resources, i.e. have "/library/os.html" redirect to "/3/library/os.html" so that we don't run into the same problem again in the future.
4. We add a notice like the one above to the home page of the 2.7 docs, announce it on the PSF blog, announce it far and wide
We also need a solution for URLs that exist for Python 2, but not for Python 3. Those should be redirected to the Python 2 resource automatically, e.g. URLs pointing to the Python 2 modules that were renamed in Python 3. BTW: Will you write up a PEP for this ? -- Marc-Andre Lemburg eGenix.com Professional Python Services directly from the Source (#1, Oct 27 2012)
2012-10-29: PyCon DE 2012, Leipzig, Germany ... 2 days to go ::: Try our new mxODBC.Connect Python Database Interface for free ! :::: eGenix.com Software, Skills and Services GmbH Pastor-Loeh-Str.48 D-40764 Langenfeld, Germany. CEO Dipl.-Math. Marc-Andre Lemburg Registered at Amtsgericht Duesseldorf: HRB 46611 http://www.egenix.com/company/contact/
On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 8:54 PM, M.-A. Lemburg <mal@egenix.com> wrote:
I find the /2/ vs /3/ too easy to miss in the middle of a full URL, whereas I find the extra space to the right of the number in /2.x/ vs /3.x/ makes them easier to separate. However, in writing up the PEP, I discovered it was annoyingly ambiguous whether "/2.x/" specifically meant that URL, or whether it meant "/2.7/" and friends, so I switched to the shorter form.
In writing up the PEP, I rediscovered an old proposal of mine to avoid breaking deep links by simply do a "documented deprecation" of unqualified deep links, but otherwise leaving them pointing to Python 2. Only the default landing page would be switched to Python 3. Since that approach avoids a *lot* of issues, that's what I ended writing up.
Committed as PEP 430, should show up http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0430 before too long. Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia
On 2012-10-27, at 10:40 AM, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan@gmail.com> wrote:
Committed as PEP 430, should show up http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0430 before too long.
I like the PEP, Nick. - Yury
On 10/27/2012 11:53 AM, Yury Selivanov wrote:
It looks good to me also. I agree that breaking the existing non-specific deep links is a problem. As I understand the proposal, browser bars would only display version- or at least series-specific links so that future copy and paste of links would do the right thing for the indefinite future. -- Terry Jan Reedy
On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 5:59 PM, Georg Brandl <g.brandl@gmx.net> wrote:
Heh, asking you to do that was next on my list, so thanks. Did Guido hide a mind reading device in the time machine? :)
I'll work on fixing the Apache config.
Huzzah \o/ Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia
On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 7:22 AM, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan@gmail.com> wrote:
As a data point, MIT's '6.00x Introduction to Computer Science and Programming' EdX online course contains many links of the form "http://docs.python.org/library/...". I don't have exact numbers, but judging by the EPD download numbers we've been seeing there are definitely thousands of students, and probably tens of thousands, taking that course. Switching docs.python.org without a generous warning period would not be a good idea for those students. -- Mark
On 27.10.2012 13:34, Mark Dickinson wrote:
Wouldn't it be possible to leave the non-versioned URLs redirecting to the Python 2 versions for say another 5 years and instead have the base URL http://docs.python.org/ provide links to either the Python 2 or 3 version (perhaps even listing the various available minor versions) ? That would avoid the issue of having existing course material on the web fail to work after just one year. At PyCon UK we discussed these issues with teachers and people interested in getting Python on the UK teaching plan. Their main concern was that text books and course material have a much longer life period than just 18 months. For them it's very important to have a stable release of both Python and its documentation that remains valid for at least 5 years. I hope that Python 3.x has stabilized enough now with the 3.3 release that it can become the basis for such materials. In any case, if we want Python 3 to be picked up in such environments, we cannot easily go about breaking things like URLs to documentation and will have to settle on a stable approach soon. -- Marc-Andre Lemburg eGenix.com Professional Python Services directly from the Source (#1, Oct 27 2012)
2012-10-29: PyCon DE 2012, Leipzig, Germany ... 2 days to go ::: Try our new mxODBC.Connect Python Database Interface for free ! :::: eGenix.com Software, Skills and Services GmbH Pastor-Loeh-Str.48 D-40764 Langenfeld, Germany. CEO Dipl.-Math. Marc-Andre Lemburg Registered at Amtsgericht Duesseldorf: HRB 46611 http://www.egenix.com/company/contact/
On Oct 27, 2012, at 03:15 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
I would hedge that and say that for new work where you have your Python 3 dependencies available, Python 3 should be the recommended default. In Ubuntu, we are actively porting our core system utilities to Python 3, but some dependencies stop us for getting all the way there. Xapian and Twisted come to mind, but the Twisted folks are making great progress, so I expect that for our Twisted apps at least, that story will be better soon. Python 3.3 has some very clear advantages, so we are pushing to make that the default leading up to Ubuntu 14.04 LTS.
Debian Wheezy is in freeze so I wouldn't expect a lot of adoption there until after that's released. Then I hope that we'll be able to push those things upstream.
One way to look at it is that there doesn't necessary have to be just one big switch. There's a big bank of switches, many of which can be flipped now. Yes, I'd love for the whole line of 'em to be Python 3 green, and eventually they will be, but if you don't need Django or PIL (or whatever still isn't ported yet), don't wait, port! Cheers, -Barry
Barry Warsaw writes:
As stated, yes, very much so. I think it's unfortunate that some of this discussion has generated more heat than light because there are three different goals here all stemming from "promoting Python 3": (1) "... as a great language", (2) "... as a great production-ready development environment" (for *some* applications), and (3) "... as a great production-ready development environment" (period, or to take a page from Linus's book, "World Domination! Now!") I think Nick's approach starts to phase in a change in promotion effort appropriately. But it's only a start.
Stephen J. Turnbull <stephen@xemacs.org> wrote:
I think Nick's approach starts to phase in a change in promotion effort appropriately. But it's only a start.
As for promotion, I just noticed that searching for "Python 3" gives this as the first result: http://www.python.org/download/releases/3.0/ Overall, the (Google) search results on the first page don't look very inviting, so perhaps we could improve the situation by adding "nofollow" to the older release pages. Stefan Krah
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 8:36 PM, Stefan Krah <stefan@bytereef.org> wrote:
The second result is the current docs at http://docs.python.org/3.3/, which is pretty useful, *except* that the docs have no pointer to the corresponding release page. Perhaps the existing "Welcome" paragraph should be extended with a reference to the appropriate release page? (Also: very nice work to everyone that helped make the version switcher a reality) Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia
Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan@gmail.com> wrote:
I think that's probably not necessary. Someone who is really searching for the newest version will of course find it. Getting rid of 3.0 in the top search results is more of an image thing. 3.0 is associated with "this new experimental version with virtually no packages that support it". For the casual searcher who might be trying to decide between Python and other languages it would be nice to have more 3.3 links, hopefully sending the message "a better Python with many more features and Django/Twisted support just around the corner".
(Also: very nice work to everyone that helped make the version switcher a reality)
I agree, the docs.python.org changes are a great improvement. Thanks everyone. Stefan Krah
On Oct 26, 2012, at 4:55 AM, Ned Batchelder <ned@nedbatchelder.com> wrote:
Before we do anything to make py3 the default, let's please provide a navigation bar that shows the version, and makes it easy to switch between versions? Py2 is still vastly more used.
+1 I can't count how many times I've been on the right page, but the wrong version, and need to switch.
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 9:31 AM, Ryan D Hiebert <ryan@ryanhiebert.com> wrote:
I believe the primary issue filed for this is here: http://bugs.python.org/issue8040 --Chris
On 10/26/2012 6:22 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
I'm not suggesting having py2 as the default, just providing an easy way to get to them. I can read 2.7 docs and figure out how 2.6 works from them much more easily than I can read 3.3 docs and figure out how 2.7 works.
For beginners learning Python in classes, I suspect Python 3 is more used. (I certainly hope so ;-).
Hmm, I don't think that's true just yet. --Ned.
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 6:22 PM, Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> wrote:
For beginners learning Python in classes, I suspect Python 3 is more used. (I certainly hope so ;-).
Instructors have their own kind of inertia. If they change major versions, they no longer get to reuse old slides, they have to rewrite old assignments, upgrade the automated test systems, and even just plain learn Python 3, which is a challenge of its own (albeit a small one.) Remember also that must non-research instructors are vastly overworked, and most research professors aren't exactly eager to burn lots of time in course preparation either, since their job is not to teach but to research. Considering that the differences between Python 2 and 3 are irrelevant for nearly any educational context, what's the payoff? The move is just something they have to do eventually because of bug support reasons, not something they are eager to do except out of some kind of enthusiasm (which, admittedly, instructors often have -- shiny is shiny.) My university (the University of Toronto) has switched to Python 3 for their new Coursera courses, because they involved writing material from scratch anyway, so might as well make it futureproof. The regular classes taught inside the university itself still use Python 2.7 (actually, they used Python 2.5 until the upgrade process a year and a half ago, which I was a part of), and other than the coursera work, as far as I am aware, no moves have been made to switch to Python 3. They might also switch to another language entirely instead. They used Racket in a couple of introductory courses last year, and I've heard good things from faculty and students involved. It's a more viable decision than it used to be, since a lot of work has to be done regardless to switch to Python 3, so the inertial reason of staying with Python is diminished. I don't think this will happen near-term, because they're still investing in Python, but it was nice to see that they were breaking out of their rut and trying new things. -- Devin
On Oct 26, 2012, at 4:36 PM, Devin Jeanpierre <jeanpierreda@gmail.com> wrote:
For beginners learning Python in classes, I suspect Python 3 is more used. (I certainly hope so ;-).
I've been teaching quite a bit this year. Python 3 isn't being used at all (by any of my clients or by any of the other instructors I know who are teaching Python). Raymond
On 2012-10-26, at 7:55 AM, Ned Batchelder <ned@nedbatchelder.com> wrote:
OK. I've just created an issue http://bugs.python.org/issue16331 with a working patch attached to it. Docs will look like this: https://dl.dropbox.com/u/21052/python/p3_doc_dd.png Please check it out! Thanks, Yury
Am 26.10.2012 01:50, schrieb Yury Selivanov:
How about http://docs2.python.org for the latest stable version of Python 2.x and http://docs3.python.org for the latest stable of Python 3.x? The py3k docs traditionally point to the latest development version. Christian
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 10:46 AM, Yury Selivanov <yselivanov.ml@gmail.com>wrote:
There are tons of links out there that would break if you switched to docs2 and docs3. JS is better. And it would accommodate a feature where a user can set a preference of what version of python documentation they want to see rather than defaulting to 2.7 or 3.x. --- Bruce Follow me: http://www.twitter.com/Vroo http://www.vroospeak.com
Am 26.10.2012 19:56, schrieb Bruce Leban:
We can have the FQDNs additionally to http://docs.python.org and have them as mnemonic for the correct Python 2.x or 3.x docs. It's easy to create an Apache rewrite rule that redirects the user to the proper documents. RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} =docs3.python.org [NC] RewriteRule ^/(.*) http://docs.python.org/release/3.3.0/$1 [R=301,L] Yury, I'm not arguing against your JS UI -- I actually like it. I like to have both. Christian
On 2012-10-26, at 2:04 PM, Christian Heimes <christian@python.org> wrote:
Thanks ;) The thing about 'doc2' & 'doc3' urls I don't like is that sooner or later users will use python 3. There is no future for python 2. That's why I think that it's better to have just one main doc destination that everybody knows, uses, and posts links to. Just my 2 cents. - Yury
On 26/10/2012 19:09, Yury Selivanov wrote:
I entirely agree with your sentiments. Complaints along the lines of "but library xyz isn't compatible with Python 3" should be met with a response from the Python community "what can we do to fix this situation". A very personnal preference, but I would like to see this happening rather than having people playing with new toys, like the Async API. YMMV. -- Cheers. Mark Lawrence.
Yury Selivanov writes:
The thing about 'doc2' & 'doc3' urls I don't like is that sooner or later users will use python 3. There is no future for python 2.
That's true for each user (assuming they don't die before switching). It's not true for all applications, though. There will undoubtedly be systems based on Python 2 still in active, profitable use 10 years from now. It's just a yucky UI, let's stick to that for a reason.
participants (23)
-
Andrew Svetlov -
Antoine Pitrou -
Barry Warsaw -
Bruce Leban -
Cameron Simpson -
Chris Jerdonek -
Christian Heimes -
Devin Jeanpierre -
Donald Stufft -
Georg Brandl -
Jay Wren -
M.-A. Lemburg -
Mark Dickinson -
Mark Lawrence -
Ned Batchelder -
Nick Coghlan -
Paul Moore -
Raymond Hettinger -
Ryan D Hiebert -
Stefan Krah -
Stephen J. Turnbull -
Terry Reedy -
Yury Selivanov