[Stackless] Stackless 2.8 layout (or stackless python 404)
richard.m.tew at gmail.com
Sun Nov 24 22:12:51 CET 2013
On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 3:48 PM, Christian Tismer <tismer at stackless.com> wrote:
> I have been thinking about this for more than a day.
> According to the known thread on python-dev
>> PEP 0404 and VS 2010
> we are not really encouraged to call our new stackless release
> something that contains the strings "python" and "2.8".
> Using some random numbering also does not make sense for us,
> for instance """Stackless Python 404""" would be clear for insiders,
> but given the existing numbering scheme, it is totally necessary for
> us to move forward sequentially in the sequence numbers, because we clearly
> want to publish improvements to python 2.7..
Yes, as I see it we have to logically choose 2.8. We can't go higher,
or else it becomes confusing with 3.x.
> Policy change for Python:
> We do not mention python explicitly in documentation for stackless 2.8.
I think this goes too far. We are primarily the Python programming
language, but with a bit extra. To deny reference to Python does more
harm than good IMO.
> We include the un-modified documentation for python 2.7.
Can I suggest an alternate approach. We use the name "Stackless 2.8",
and we leave all Python references in the Stackless documentation.
However, we put a header in the template with a short statement making
it clear that this is not Python 2.8, and a link to further
information. This should override any reasonable chance of accidental
confusion where other pages might automatically have the combined
words "Python 2.8".
> All additions/extension/modifications are documented in extra documents
> called "stackless-news" and "stackless-readme".
The tricking people to use Stackless isn't the way I would prefer we
go about it. If it were up to me, I would just keep it simple. I
would not #ifdef back-ported 3.x features. I would have it build
"notpython 2.8" if STACKESS_OFF was defined. If people wanted to get
involved and help back port features to an updated version of 2.7,
they could do so and use it as a non-stackless python. We wouldn't
provide binaries for "notpython 2.8", and if people wanted to get a
properly supported 2.8, they'd simply migrate to the supported
Other than that, the rest of the post sounds fine.
More information about the Stackless