[Tutor] http question

Clayton Kirkwood crk at godblessthe.us
Tue Nov 11 05:52:23 CET 2014

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Tutor [mailto:tutor-bounces+crk=godblessthe.us at python.org] On
>Behalf Of Steven D'Aprano
>Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2014 3:04 AM
>To: tutor at python.org
>Subject: Re: [Tutor] http question
>On Sat, Nov 08, 2014 at 09:53:33PM -0800, Clayton Kirkwood wrote:
>> >> but I also am aware of httplib2, but it still seems to be in
>> >> eternal alpha.
>> >
>> >What leads you to that conclusion? If you're talking about this:
>> >
>> >https://github.com/jcgregorio/httplib2
>> >
>> >I don't see any sign that it is alpha version software. According to
>> >the readme file, it is at version 0.8.
>> >
>> >I don't see any signs that the author publicly releases any alpha or
>> >beta versions, they all appear to be ready for production. But if you
>> >have seen something that suggests otherwise, please point it out,
>> >because I'm happy to be corrected.
>> Well, I work from the premise that 0.anything is still a work in
>> progress
>All software is always a work in progress, until such time it is

And how do you determine the abandoned timestamp? If I remember correctly,
this hasn't been updated for several years, and a job for a customer
shouldn't be based on 0.*, years old hypothetical's. It sounds like a very
usable product.

>> and hasn't gotten to a point where the author is comfortable with
>> general use. I am sure that you disagree.
>In the FOSS (Free and Open Source Software) community, version 0.x does
>not always carry connotations of being unready for use. It may, or it
>may not. But normally "alpha" software will have an "a" in the version
>number, e.g. 0.7a, 0.7b for beta, 0.7rc1 (release candidate 1), 0.7 is
>ready for production.
>What matters is not my opinion, or yours, but that of the author of the
>software, and I don't know what that is.
>Tutor maillist  -  Tutor at python.org
>To unsubscribe or change subscription options:

More information about the Tutor mailing list