[Python-Dev] Python 2.5 and ast-branch
ncoghlan at gmail.com
Wed Oct 5 15:29:22 CEST 2005
Guido van Rossum wrote:
> On 10/4/05, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan at gmail.com> wrote:
>>I was planning on looking at your patch too, but I was waiting for an answer
>>from Guido about the fate of the ast-branch for Python 2.5. Given that we have
>>patches for PEP 342 and PEP 343 against the trunk, but ast-branch still isn't
>>even passing the Python 2.4 test suite, I'm wondering if it should be bumped
>>from the feature list again.
> What do you want me to say about the AST branch? It's not my branch, I
> haven't even checked it out, I'm just patiently waiting for the folks
> who started it to finally finish it.
It was a question I asked a few weeks back  that didn't get any response
(even from Brett!), to do with the fact that for Python 2.4 there was a
deadline for landing the ast-branch that was a month or two in advance of the
deadline for 2.4a1. I thought you'd set that deadline, but now that I look for
it, I can't actually find any evidence of that. The only thing I can find is
Jeremy's email saying it wasn't ready in time  (Jeremy's concern about
reference leaks in ast-branch when it encounters compile errors is one I
Anyway, the question is: What do we want to do with ast-branch? Finish
bringing it up to Python 2.4 equivalence, make it the HEAD, and only then
implement the approved PEP's (308, 342, 343) that affect the compiler? Or
implement the approved PEP's on the HEAD, and move the goalposts for
ast-branch to include those features as well?
I believe the latter is the safe option in terms of making sure 2.5 is a solid
release, but doing it that way suggests to me that the ast compiler would need
to be held over until 2.6, which would be somewhat unfortunate.
Given that I don't particularly like that answer, I'd love for someone to
convince me I'm wrong ;)
Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan at gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia
More information about the Python-Dev