[Stackless] __future__ policy

[Richard Tew]

>From what I've read, most expect to upgrade to 3.x eventually, but
have to stick with 2.x for now out of practicality.

The work involved in going it alone and taking a 2.x fork in it's own
direction, is immense compared to the work involved in piggybacking
off the work of the 3.x developers by backporting, and primarily
moving a 2.x fork towards 3.x.

Cheers,
Richard.

On 1/9/14, Emile van Sebille <emile at fenx.com> wrote:
> On 1/8/2014 12:29 PM, Richard Tew wrote:
>
>> I think we should approach python-dev and try and get them.
>>
>> Is there a core developer we can get on board, who we can ask to
>> broach the issue for us?  Given there is somewhat of an antipathy for
>> 2.8 on the mailing list, and we've provoked it before, it may be best
>> if we get one of their team to sponsor the proposal.
>>
>> Really, what we're doing benefits Python 3.x migration in future, so
>> them downvoting it is biting off their own hand to save their foot.
>>
>
> Ultimately I see this less of a v2 to v3 migration issue than simply
> calling a spade a spade -- we've now got v2 and v3 python languages.
> One of which we're trying to keep breathing life into.  And it doesn't
> sound like the dev group is on board with there being two pythons (of
> their own making no less!)
>
> Be honest now, how many of us interested in a stackless v2.8 are wanting
> to migrate our code base to v3.x?  I'd say none -- otherwise those would
> be migrating.
>
> I'd forgo migration compatibility as an issue and move on to scratching
> the itches.  Let's grab the candy from v3 and save the migration battle
> for that day that might never come.
>
> Steven's comment that migration, once the decision is made to do so, is
> a one shot deal can help make the decision that providing for a
> migration path need not be the motivation.
>
> Wondering-about-the-status-of-my-v1.6-codebase-ly y'rs,
>
> Emile
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Stackless mailing list
> Stackless at stackless.com
> http://www.stackless.com/mailman/listinfo/stackless
>