[Python-Dev] Continuing 2.x

Nick Coghlan ncoghlan at gmail.com
Fri Oct 29 03:46:14 CEST 2010

On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 3:47 AM, Tres Seaver <tseaver at palladion.com> wrote:
> I think that assumption may not be warranted.  If the current core folks
> are focused only on developing Python 3, but others are working on a
> notional 2.8, there is no necessary correlation any longer between the
> two.  In particular, the judgement of the current core about various
> tradeoffs in the Python 2 codebase won't be as relevant as it has been,
> in particular because the overarching drive (add features / warnings
> etc. which ease / encourage migration to Python 3) won't be in the
> forefront of the new group's perspective.

That's a fair point actually, but it would be a decision for the
possible-but-not-yet-existing group to take as they formed. Given the
likely divergence in design goals, it would probably be best to just
bite the bullet and declare it a fork of Python 2.7 (py2x 2.8?
RetroPython 2.8?). It would hardly be the first such fork - other
flavours of 2.x with design goals that differ from those of python-dev
certainly have a long history (Stackless, wpython, etc).

There are also IP issues to consider in setting up such a group
though. The PSF takes care of it for python.org, but those contributor
agreements wouldn't necessarily cover a new fork.


Nick Coghlan   |   ncoghlan at gmail.com   |   Brisbane, Australia

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list