[Stackless] stackless improvements / evolution

Richard Tew richard.m.tew at gmail.com
Sat Sep 7 07:12:49 CEST 2013

I don't see a reason why calling it 2.8 shouldn't be a problem if
Kristjan's already received the thumbs up.

Also, I think we should always provide binaries.  Most of us compiling
it ourselves, is not representative of the people who download
prebuilt binaries and installers who would probably not otherwise
bother with Stackless.  My take has always been that Stackless has
always been niche, and misrepresented with people making mistaken
comparisons to generator coroutines or that it "doesn't use the
stack."  It's only a good thing for Stackless to be more approachable,
so people can try it out on a whim.

On that subject, we haven't done binary only releases for the most
recent versions of Stackless.  The idea behind these was that they can
just be extracted over a Python installation to turn it into a
Stackless installation.  And there is a demand for these, someone was
just a few days ago moaning on stack overflow that there wasn't any
way to do this.

Anyway, some further thoughts.


On 9/5/13, Anselm Kruis <a.kruis at science-computing.de> wrote:
> Am 03.09.2013 22:59, schrieb Richard Tew:
>> The point that bothers me is that we've always done Stackless releases
>> as simply something that should work as the same version of mainline
>> Python, but with optional Stackless features.
>> To some degree it seems like we should do releases of both the evolved
>> Python and the normal Python both with Stackless features.
> +1 for that.
> Here at science+computing we will continue to use (Stackless-) Python
> 2.7 for several years. Therefore +1 for continuing Stackless 2.7.
> But there are several caveats
> - We will see a few more official releases of Python 2.7. Therefore we
> can't simply increase the micro version number. On the other hand, a
> Python 2.8 will cause political and technical problems. I wonder, if we
> could (mis-)use the releaselevel component of the Python version number?
> - How to release? Release binaries at all? Currently most of us compile
> Stackless themselves.
> - Compatibility and quality: the current code base of 2.7 contains many
> problematic parts. If we continue to maintain 2.7 how can we avoid
> regressions?
> Regards
>    Anselm
> --
>   Dipl. Phys. Anselm Kruis                       science + computing ag
>   Senior Solution Architect                      Ingolstädter Str. 22
>   email A.Kruis at science-computing.de             80807 München, Germany
>   phone +49 89 356386 874  fax 737               www.science-computing.de
> --
> Vorstandsvorsitzender/Chairman of the board of management:
> Gerd-Lothar Leonhart
> Vorstand/Board of Management:
> Dr. Bernd Finkbeiner, Michael Heinrichs,
> Dr. Arno Steitz, Dr. Ingrid Zech
> Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats/
> Chairman of the Supervisory Board:
> Philippe Miltin
> Sitz/Registered Office: Tuebingen
> Registergericht/Registration Court: Stuttgart
> Registernummer/Commercial Register No.: HRB 382196
> _______________________________________________
> Stackless mailing list
> Stackless at stackless.com
> http://www.stackless.com/mailman/listinfo/stackless

More information about the Stackless mailing list