[Stackless] python 2.8 slp (Re: Fwd: [Stackless-checkins] stackless (2.7-slp): add a filter function to zipfile.PyZipFile.)

Christian Tismer tismer at stackless.com
Mon Nov 11 13:05:38 CET 2013


Hi,

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 
VS2010,
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 
need
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 
xrange(0x3000000, 0x3030000):

And python 2.8 without stackless is implicitly possible by defining 
STACKLESS_OFF ;-)

Any objections?

all the best - Chris


On 06.11.13 21:03, Anselm Kruis wrote:
> Hi,
>
> 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.
>
> Regards
>   Anselm
>
> 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 :)
>> K
>>
>>> -----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 
>>> control.
>>>
>>> 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...
URL: <http://www.stackless.com/pipermail/stackless/attachments/20131111/be18f999/attachment.html>


More information about the Stackless mailing list