[IronPython] The elephant in the room: source control for IronPython

Jeff Hardy jdhardy at gmail.com
Fri Oct 29 07:32:16 CEST 2010

On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 12:16 PM, Vernon Cole <vernondcole at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 7:34 AM, Michael Foord <fuzzyman at voidspace.org.uk>
> wrote:
>> On 28/10/2010 03:53, Steve Dower wrote:
>>> Is the plan after 2.7 to start doing 3? That seems like a good
>>> opportunity to "start fresh" in a new repository and leave the old
>>> stuff where it is, only carrying over the barest minimum. I can't see
>>> any movement before 2.7 as being worthwhile.
>> Interesting question. Ideally we would do parallel development but I'm not
>> sure we have the resources for that.
> Python 2.7 is documented to be the LAST of its family. There should not be
> very much "development", except perhaps filling out the standard library.
> I would say to put 3.n on a fresh hg tree, and back-port anything necessary
> into the existing 2.7 tree and infrastructure. No sense in re-inventing that
> wheel.

I don't know if I want to lose the history completely, but I'm not
sure how much value it has either. Other than that, I'm liking this
idea a lot. IronPython 3.2 will be a completely new repo, while 2.7
and below will stay in a legacy one.

I don't see there being a ton of major changes to 2.7 anyway, and I
doubt it will be around as long as CPython 2.7. IronPython 3 is going
to be far more compatible with Python 3 than the 2.x series is.

- Jeff

More information about the Ironpython-users mailing list