[Python-3000] [Python-Dev] dbm.sqlite

[Jesus Cea]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> I agree about performance but I don't think it's right to say we can fix
> stability later. This is a storage module, and people risk losing their data if
> there are glaring bugs. If we really want an efficient dbm-compatible storage
> backend for all platforms on 3.0, then why not bite the bullet and re-add bsddb?
> Even though it has its quirks, it's certainly much more tested than a
> hypothetical dbm.sqlite whipped up in a few days and used by nobody in the wild.

Of course I'm +1 to re-adding bsddb, moreover with 3.0 slipping the
original 1st October release. But note than Guido in person "rather
prefer" to drop bsddb in 3.0.

I have a conflict talking about sqlite dbm module in 3.0. So I rather do
not vote on that issue.

- --
Jesus Cea Avion                         _/_/      _/_/_/        _/_/_/
jcea at jcea.es - http://www.jcea.es/     _/_/    _/_/  _/_/    _/_/  _/_/
jabber / xmpp:jcea at jabber.org         _/_/    _/_/          _/_/_/_/_/
.                              _/_/  _/_/    _/_/          _/_/  _/_/
"Things are not so easy"      _/_/  _/_/    _/_/  _/_/    _/_/  _/_/
"My name is Dump, Core Dump"   _/_/_/        _/_/_/      _/_/  _/_/
"El amor es poner tu felicidad en la felicidad de otro" - Leibniz
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iQCVAwUBSNFMA5lgi5GaxT1NAQI9ywP/U4g7PjtMp5Uae0NMxByCJsbFgJPXkbMx
S8xi31YqUx9j3hc/3vFjYH2+Ywf1WPTDfUN3LLhf0oVBEbwJl9QQKyua0e2AesBY
g6qQ0meZdpRHm0WzHByI5/aMkxAnwEoHILveMubnQRr1KpTexGHEa6mXv5aVwkJm
6KIqS3tG0kk=
=XMnZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----