[Stackless] python 2.8
richard.m.tew at gmail.com
Tue Dec 31 20:06:29 CET 2013
I think it's entirely reasonable that it hasn't been forked. No-one
is willing to do the work. Say what you will about 3.x, but it is
what the core developers are interested in working on, and stepping up
and doing the work for. That's one thing that bothers me about the
current discussion going on out there, non-contributors are expressing
entitlements to contributors (of their own free time) doing what the
non-contributors want, the way the non-contributors want it. We're
better off having a bunch of people still around working on 3.x and a
bunch of people who talk about 2.8, than no people working on 3.x or
2.8 and a bunch of people wondering why no-one is working on anything.
The mandatory agreement is the way all solid open source projects
should be done. If they want to relicense the project because of
unforseen problems with the existing license, it likely gives them the
ability to do so. Whereas you have projects like videolan which had
to tediously track down all contributors or rewrite their
contributions, in order to relicense. And there are likely other
Chin up. Maybe there'll be a 2.8 soon.
On 12/31/13, Kristján Valur Jónsson <kristjan at ccpgames.com> wrote:
> What I don't understand is why cpython hasn't been forked long ago. Does it
> have some legal status preventing it from that? And whats with the mandatory
> contributors agreement? That sounds really odd in the day and age of freely
> forkable open source projects.
> Sent from the æther.
> -------- Original message --------
> From: Richard Tew <richard.m.tew at gmail.com>
> To: The Stackless Python Mailing List <stackless at stackless.com>
> Subject: Re: [Stackless] python 2.8
> Maybe there's a lesson to be learned that you just can't make
> divergent jumps like this, and expect the community to follow. But
> then again, the community will have no choice but to eventually follow
> given 2.x is closed.
> Personally, I'm over it. It's all in the doing now, we release
> Stackless 2.8 because that's what we're interested in.
> On 12/31/13, Kristján Valur Jónsson <kristjan at ccpgames.com> wrote:
>> Alex Gaynor just blogged about the failed state of 3.x and the need to
>> in and produce a better 2.x
> Stackless mailing list
> Stackless at stackless.com
More information about the Stackless