[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
Tue Nov 12 12:12:16 CET 2013


Hi Anselm,

agreed, good idea.
What do people prefer? bitbucked or github?
The latter is better manageable, I like git much better, meanwhile.
But the move of the repository is a PITA, so probably answering myself:

For getting started really quick, it should be bitbucket. I will create 
stackless there.
For later, a git version on either github or bitbucket might be discussed.

But I want that thing ready this week, right? ;-)

Will try to write the policy, first.

cheers - chris


On 11.11.13 20:51, Anselm Kruis wrote:
> Hi Christian,
>
> we (=you) should document the 2.8 policy on www.stackless.com. And we 
> should think about moving the Stackless development to bitbucket or 
> another platform, that supports pull requests.
>
> In general, we should avoid the development of new features on the 
> 2.x-slp branch of hg.python.org/stackless. This causes bugs and 
> undocumented changes every now and then. For instance, the C-Python 
> test suite fails to run with 2.7-slp on Windows since Oct 25 (see 
> http://www.stackless.com/ticket/26). With stackless on bitbucket, we 
> could use forks for feature development and merge the results back 
> once all tests pass.
>
>
> Cheers
>   Anselm
>
> Am 11.11.2013 13:05, schrieb Christian Tismer:
>> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>> 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/
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Stackless mailing list
>> Stackless at stackless.com
>> http://www.stackless.com/mailman/listinfo/stackless
>>
>


-- 
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/




More information about the Stackless mailing list