[Python-Dev] [RELEASED] Python 2.7 alpha 2
Stephen J. Turnbull
stephen at xemacs.org
Mon Jan 11 10:59:57 CET 2010
Neil Schemenauer writes:
> On Sun, Jan 10, 2010 at 09:06:15PM -0800, Brett Cannon wrote:
> > If people start taking the carrots we have added to 3.x and
> > backporting them to keep the 2.x series alive you are essentially
> > making the 3.x DOA by negating its benefits which I personally
> > don't agree with.
Well, I think it's *worse* than that, and I don't think you really
mean "DOA", anyway. (Feel free to correct me, of course.)
The problem I see with backporting lots of stuff, and/or adding new
features that aren't in 3.0, to 2.x is that it will make 2.x even
cruftier, when it was already crufty enough that Guido (and almost all
of python-dev) bit the bullet and said "backward compatibility is no
excuse for keeping something in 3.0".
That surely means that a lot of python-dev denizens will declare
non-support 2.x for x > 7. It's not going to be the gradual migration
we've seen over the past few months as active people start to spend
more and more time on 3 vs. 2; it will be a watershed. Especially if
these are new features merged from outside that the "small active
segment" doesn't know anything about. From the users' point of view,
that amounts to a *fork*, even if it's internal and "friendly".
> I think we have got to the heart of our disagreement. Assume that
> some superhuman takes all the backwards compatible goodies from 3.x
> and merges them into 2.x.
Isn't that a bit ridiculous? I just don't see any evidence that
anything like that is going to happen. Worse, if we *assume* it will
happen, I don't see any way to assess whether (1) Python 3 goes belly
up, (2) there's an effective fork confusing the users and draining the
energy of python-dev, or (3) everybody goes "wow!" because it's so
cool that everybody wants to keep maintaining an extra 3 branches
My opinion is that given the clear direction the "small active
segment" is going, telling the users anything but what Brett proposed
> I guess I have more confidence in Python 3 than you do. I don't see
> why Python 2.x needs to be artificially limited so that Python 3 can
It's not for Python 3, which you, I, and I'm pretty sure Brett-in-his-
heart-of-hearts agree can take care of itself because it is *better*
than Python 2. It's for Python, and for the Python community.
More information about the Python-Dev