richard.m.tew at gmail.com
Fri Mar 7 21:41:04 CET 2014
My assumption is that most users will relate to the PEP 0404
numbering, and won't have a use for the Stackless versioning.
Stackless x.y SLP z.q
I propose we have:
And then have z.q queryable through 'stackless.getversion()' or
On 3/8/14, Christian Tismer <tismer at stackless.com> wrote:
> The Stackless version was never maintained very well.
> "3.1b3" never changed after 2004-06-03 (!)
> and so the version string was "3.1b3 040603".
> The version number was kept until today (although I wanted it to be changed,
> when major changes were done, but did not do it myself).
> From time to time I updated the date of the stackless version, like
> these findings in an email history search:
> ! #define STACKLESS_VERSION "3.1b3 040719"
> ! #define STACKLESS_VERSION "3.1b3 041130"
> /* keep this entry up-to-date */
> -#define STACKLESS_VERSION "3.1b3 050929"
> +#define STACKLESS_VERSION "3.1b3 060504"
> Andrew Dahlke did in fact what the comment says:
> /* keep this entry up-to-date */
> -#define STACKLESS_VERSION "3.1b3 060504"
> +#define STACKLESS_VERSION "3.1b3 060516"...
> For the records: 2006-05-15 was the first time that the PyQT problem was
> mentioned ;-)
> So the 3.1b3 was never ever changed, even not on the 2006 Stackless sprint.
> On ditching the number:
> The number was meant to show a version of stackless design, which worked
> until that 3.1b3 version.
> The date was there to see when a version was created.
> I think it is bad do just ditch it, and it is bad to keep it as it is.
> When we submit stackless 2.8, the problem becomes worse, because
> then the version number is the 0404 replacement for Python, and then
> we have no version number for Stackless itself, at all.
> What to do?
> After all that many refinements, improvements and changes, a version
> bump for
> the stackless design is needed, and after all the new 3.x versions of
> I think it is better to go on more drastically.
> What about the following example:
> "Stackless 2.8 SLP 4.0" for the 404 case, maybe with a SLP date
> string as well
> "Stackless 2.8 SLP 4.0 140207"
> and in the 2.7/3.x case until we completely migrate to Stackless:
> "Python 3.3 SLP 4.0 140207"
> "Python 2.7.6 SLP 4.0 140207"
> or should we toss the "design date" in favor of finer SLP versioning?
> I think we should not go completely without it, but keep it apart from
> version numbers, and also do an announcement.
> cheers - Chris
> On 04.03.14 20:26, Richard Tew wrote:
>> You mean like:
>> Python 3.2.5 Stackless 3.2.
>> It looks confusing. Better just to ditch the number I think.
>> On 3/5/14, Kristján Valur Jónsson <kristjan at ccpgames.com> wrote:
>>> why not just go with 3.2? Does anyone use this number at all anyway?
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: stackless-bounces at stackless.com [mailto:stackless-
>>>> bounces at stackless.com] On Behalf Of Richard Tew
>>>> Sent: 3. mars 2014 02:20
>>>> To: stackless at stackless.com
>>>> Subject: [Stackless] stackless_version.h
>>>> 3.1b3 060516 is kind of a magic number, maybe we could do away with it?
>>>> was going to bump it to 3.2, but decided it would be a little confusing.
>>>> Python 2.7.6r2 Stackless 3.1b3 060516 (default, Mar 3 2014, 15:11:44)
>>>> v.1500 32 bit (Intel)] on win32 Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or
>>>> for more information.
>>>> Stackless mailing list
>>>> Stackless at stackless.com
>>> Stackless mailing list
>>> Stackless at stackless.com
>> Stackless mailing list
>> Stackless at stackless.com
> 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
More information about the Stackless