On Sun, 2010-11-07 at 15:06 -0800, Mike Orr wrote: > On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 2:48 PM, Mike Orr <sluggos...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 2:11 PM, Marius Gedminas <mar...@gedmin.as> wrote: > >> (I have to say that document surprised me -- pleasantly -- due to your > >> dedication for user support. Python 2.4, even!) > > > > 2.4 and 2.5 combatibility will impede the switch to Python 3, as well > > as disallowing 2.6isms which has been the current version of Python > > for over a year. Since Pyramid is new framework, it should start at > > Python 2.6. There can be one bridge version for existing BFG > > applications. > > Actually, no. Given that Pyramid just had its first alpha, waiting > till the second release would mean being stuck with 2.4 compatibility > for a year or more.
Unlikely. BFG made a major release every six months or so. > If people are going to have to modify their > applications anyway for Pyramid, they might as well make them 2.6 > compliant while they're at it. Then they'll be ready for Python 3. TBH, I'm only theoretically interested in Py3K stuff. There is a much larger installed base of 2.X users, some of whom, for OS compatibility reasons just cannot run 2.6 or 2.7 yet. So I'd be fine with dropping official 2.4 support soon, but preferably not in the 1.0 version. I definitely don't want to drop 2.5 support in the first version or the next version unless there's some compelling reason to do so that isn't just for the sake of theoretical forward 3.X compatibility. - C -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "pylons-devel" group. To post to this group, send email to pylons-de...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to pylons-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pylons-devel?hl=en.
