richard.m.tew at gmail.com
Wed Nov 13 23:19:49 CET 2013
I think you should just start with 2.8.0b1 and keep it simple.
I'm a little curious about the mention of only introducing features
back ported from 3.x. Which features? All of them one by one, making
this an onerous chore? Or just whichever as whoever has a vested
stake needs to?
On 11/14/13, Christian Tismer <tismer at stackless.com> wrote:
> Hi Kristjan and 2.8 heroes,
> On 13/11/13 15:04, Kristján Valur Jónsson wrote:
>> Python 2.7.6 is upon us.
>> I'll merge it in presently.
> that raises a question concerning python 2.8.
> What would you say: Is 2.8 starting like any new python version,
> first version 2.8.0b1 and whatnot?
> Or: Does stackless 2.8 simply mirror the 2.7 numbering scheme,
> because 2.8 is just a clone of the respective 2.7 versions, with some
> back-ported features from 3.X?
> IOW. would I try to produce a 2.8.5 final right now? And a 2.8.6 later
> the version is still bloody, stackless-wise?
> And how about micro-numbers, are they sufficient to maintain the
> version of the added functionality? Or do we still need an extra version
> for stackless appended?
> 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