[Idle-dev] idle-fork, merging 2x SPE patches

[Kurt B. Kaiser]

Guido van Rossum wrote:
> 
> > 1. Continue merging py-cvs such that the original David Scherer  SPE patches
> > remain undisturbed, and then work out their relationship to the new Guido
> > patches and figure out which parts of which person's patches to continue
> > forward with.
> >
> > or
> >
> > 2.  Merge py-cvs such that David's SPE patches are reduced to exisitng only
> > in prior versions, then merge the new Guido SPE patches and look at things
> > from that perspective.
> 
> I vote for 1.  The first goal should be a complete merge of IDLE 0.8
> as found in the Python CVS with David's version.
> 
> Then we could look into a better way of SPE.  I don't know if David's
> approach isn't just better!  I vaguely remember that Jeremy Hylton
> reviewed it a year and a half ago and though it wasn't general enough,
> but that was then, and I haven't verified this myself.  Also note that
> Jeremy wrote and checked in RemoteInterp.py, which is yet another RPC
> protocol; but he never got to the point of using it.
> 
> Yet another option would be to look into xmlrpclib, which has just
> been accepted as an official standard library module in Python 2.2.

I vote for #1, also. What I'd suggest is finish the merge with Release 2.1, tag
the repository with "py-cvs-rel2_1-merged" and then install and test the
result. Once we get it working and installable with setup.py, tag again with
"py-cvs-rel2_1-merged-tested" and release a new tarball to the world.

Then proceed with developing the client/server design.

Maybe we should do the client/server work on a branch? It might take us awhile
to sort out and in the meantime people could access a solid CVS version with
some usability enhancements, etc.(installed on the trunk), without the
instability of the client/server development. 

Regards, KBK

   K u r t    B.   K a i s e r
   k b k @@ s h o r e .. n e t
------------------------------