[Python-Dev] PEP 382: Namespace Packages

[Tres Seaver]

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

Jesse Noller wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 12:28 PM, R. David Murray <rdmurray at bitdance.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 6 Apr 2009 at 12:00, Jesse Noller wrote:
>>> On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 9:26 AM, Barry Warsaw <barry at python.org> wrote:
>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>>
>>>> On Apr 6, 2009, at 9:21 AM, Jesse Noller wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 4:33 PM, M.-A. Lemburg <mal at egenix.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 2009-04-02 17:32, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
>>>>>>> I propose the following PEP for inclusion to Python 3.1.
>>>>>> Thanks for picking this up.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'd like to extend the proposal to Python 2.7 and later.
>>>>>>
>>>>> -1 to adding it to the 2.x series. There was much discussion around
>>>>> adding features to 2.x *and* 3.0, and the consensus seemed to *not*
>>>>> add new features to 2.x and use those new features as carrots to help
>>>>> lead people into 3.0.
>>>> Actually, isn't the policy just that nothing can go into 2.7 that isn't
>>>> backported from 3.1?  Whether the actual backport happens or not is up to
>>>> the developer though.  OTOH, we talked about a lot of things and my
>>>> recollection is probably fuzzy.
>>>>
>>>> Barry
>>> That *is* the official policy, but there was discussions around no
>>> further backporting of features from 3.1 into 2.x, therefore providing
>>> more of an upgrade incentive
>> My sense was that this wasn't proposed as a hard and fast rule, more
>> as a strongly suggested guideline.
>>
>> And in this case, I think you could argue that the PEP is actually
>> fixing a bug in the current namespace packaging system.
>>
>> Some projects, especially the large ones where this matters most, are
>> going to have to maintain backward compatibility for 2.x for a long time
>> even as 3.x adoption accelerates.  It seems a shame to require packagers
>> to continue to deal with the problems caused by the current system even
>> after all the platforms have made it to 2.7+.
>>
>> --David
> 
> I know it wasn't a hard and fast rule; also, with 3to2 already being
> worked on, the barrier of maintenance and back porting is going to be
> lowered.

My understanding from the summit is that the only point in a 2.7 release
at all is to lower the "speed bumps" which make porting from 2.x to 3.x
hard for large codebases.  In this case, having a consistent spelling
for namespace packages between 2.7 and 3.1 would incent those
applications / frameworks / libraries to move to 2.7, and therefore ease
getting them to 3.1.


Tres.
- --
===================================================================
Tres Seaver          +1 540-429-0999          tseaver at palladion.com
Palladion Software   "Excellence by Design"    http://palladion.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFJ2jaR+gerLs4ltQ4RAsi1AJ0cJyKsoP5SlOcBlnzLr6MB11ZoNwCg1Kil
4O2M0sZG+jH12s22p2AmXWk=
=DLRM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----