[Stackless] python 2.8 slp (Re: Fwd: [Stackless-checkins] stackless (2.7-slp): add a filter function to zipfile.PyZipFile.)
tismer at stackless.com
Mon Nov 11 13:05:38 CET 2013
now I have a good reason for 2.8. I would like to:
- switch compilers on windows to VS2010
- only add features if they are in Python3 as well
- maybe remove bsddb (because 3.x tossed it)
I am working right now with a windows 2.7 version that I modified for
but life would be much easier if we decide to make the compiler transition.
Because no official 2.8 will exist, this is a fine move.
Also I struggled quite a lot buildin pywin32 for it. With 2.8, this will
no new special version, but the transition can be very easily done.
pywin32 decides by
# vs2008 or vs2010
if sys.hexversion < 0x3030000:
which could become
# vs2008 or vs2010
if sys.hexversion < 0x2080000 or sys.hexversion in
And python 2.8 without stackless is implicitly possible by defining
all the best - Chris
On 06.11.13 21:03, Anselm Kruis wrote:
> I agree, that we should continue to support Python 2. Our customers
> operate large data centers and implement processes using python 2.
> They won't migrate this code unless there is a very compelling (=
> saves money) reason.
> As long as the PSF releases new versions of Python 2.7, we should
> follow the 2.7 release cycle. This way we can guarantee that Stackless
> 2.7.x is compatible to C-Python 2.7.x. After the last C-Python
> release, we can continue to add bug fixes and support for new
> platforms or OS versions.
> About a Stackless 2.8: I like the idea, but we should keep a tight
> rein on it and only accept back-ports of features already in
> (Stackless-) Python 3.x. Otherwise we won't be able to keep a
> reasonable quality. And nobody will use a Stackless 2.8, if there is
> no reasonable migration path to (stackless) python 3.x. But if we add
> proven 3.x features, a stackless 2.8 could become an attractive option
> on the way to python 3.
> About Stackless 3.x: new features - except stackless related ones -
> should go to C-Python. We don't have enough resources to keep up the
> quality of the code and - more important - nobody will accept a
> stackless based solution, if stackless becomes an esoteric and
> incompatible fork of Python.
> Am 31.10.2013 14:16, schrieb Kristján Valur Jónsson:
>> Fair enough.
>> How hard are those to set up?
>> 2.8-slp could be branched off when we feel like it.
>> I could be an enhanced 2.7 with the added benefit of having slp.
>> There would be no stackless-less 2.8 :)
>> Of course it will be an absolute bastard in terms of featuritis
>> unless we keep a tight rein on it :)
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: stackless-bounces at stackless.com [mailto:stackless-
>>> bounces at stackless.com] On Behalf Of Richard Tew
>>> Sent: 30. október 2013 18:14
>>> To: The Stackless Python Mailing List
>>> Subject: Re: [Stackless] Fwd: [Stackless-checkins] stackless
>>> (2.7-slp): add a
>>> filter function to zipfile.PyZipFile.
>>> No, let me be clear. I do not have an opinion about the source
>>> I am suggesting that Stackless-related discussion stay on this
>>> mailing list. It is
>>> a general topic that covers 2.x and 3.x and does not relate to
>>> enhancing the
>>> 2.x line.
>>> And that Python 2.x development go on another mailing list.
Christian Tismer :^) <mailto:tismer at stackless.com>
Software Consulting : Have a break! Take a ride on Python's
Karl-Liebknecht-Str. 121 : *Starship* http://starship.python.net/
14482 Potsdam : PGP key -> http://pgp.uni-mainz.de
phone +49 173 24 18 776 fax +49 (30) 700143-0023
PGP 0x57F3BF04 9064 F4E1 D754 C2FF 1619 305B C09C 5A3B 57F3 BF04
whom do you want to sponsor today? http://www.stackless.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Stackless