[Python-Dev] Re: Is the 2.0 xml package too immature to release?

[Paul Prescod]

Guido van Rossum wrote:
> 
> ...
> 
> I'm not proposing that it be called xmlcore for eternity, but I see a
> *practical* problem with the 2.0 release: the xml-sig has a package
> called 'xml' (and they've had dibs on the name for years!) which is
> incompatible.  We can't force them to issue a new release under a
> different name.  I don't want to break other people's code that
> requires the xml-sig's xml package.

Martin v. Loewis, Greg Stein and others think that they have a
backwards-compatible solution. You can decide whether to let Martin try
versus go the "xmlcore" route, or else you could delegate that decision
(to someone in particular, please!).

> I propose the following:
> 
> We remove the '_xmlplus' feature.  It seems better not to rely on the
> xml-sig to provide upgrades to the core xml package.  We're planning
> 2.1, 2.2, ... releases 3-6 months apart which should be quick enough
> for most upgrade needs; we can issue service packs in between if
> necessary.

I could live with this proposal but it isn't my decision. Are you
instructing the SIG to do this? Or are you suggesting I go back to the
SIG and start a discussion on it? What decision making procedure do you
advocate? Who is supposed to make this decision?

> *IF* (and that's still a big "if"!) the xml core support is stable
> before Sept. 26, we'll keep it under the name 'xmlcore'.  If it's not
> stable, we remove it, but we'll consider it for 2.1.

We can easily have something stable within a few days from now. In fact,
all reported bugs are already fixed in patches that I will check in
today. There are no hard technical issues here.

-- 
 Paul Prescod - Not encumbered by corporate consensus
Simplicity does not precede complexity, but follows it. 
	- http://www.cs.yale.edu/homes/perlis-alan/quotes.html