On Jul 7, 2:10 pm, Brendan Abel <007bren...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > One thing that would be very useful is how to maintain something that > > > > works on 2.x and 3.x, but not limiting yourself to 2.6. Giving up > > > > versions below 2.6 is out of the question for most projects with a > > > > significant userbase IMHO. As such, the idea of running the python 3 > > > > warnings is not so useful IMHO - unless it could be made to work > > > > better for python 2.x < 2.6, but I am not sure the idea even makes > > > > sense. > > The entire fact that 3.x was *designed* to be incompatible should tell > you that supporting 2.x and 3.x with a single code base is a bad idea, > except for the very smallest of projects. This is the point where a > project should fork and provide two different versions.
Well, I think it could be a reasonable thing to maintain a single codebase in 2.x and use 2to3 (and/or a custom translator) to translate to 3.x version for quite a while. For the humble library I maintain, I plan to release a Python 3 version as soon as a Python 3 version of numpy is released, maintain a single codebase (translating from 2 version to 3) for awhile, then at some point fork them and maintain them separately. Given that I add features about once every 2 years I don't think it'll be too much of a burden, though. Carl Banks -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
