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

Guido van Rossum guido@beopen.com
Fri, 15 Sep 2000 12:12:31 -0500

> > 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 will make the decision based on information gathered by Fred Drake.
You, Martin, Greg Stein and others have to get the information to him.

> > 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?

I feel that the XML-SIG isn't ready for action, so I'm making it easy
for them: they don't have to do anything.  Their package is called
'xml'.  The core package will be called something else.

> > *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.

Thanks.  This is a great help!

--Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.pythonlabs.com/~guido/)