On 08/01/2014 14:15, Roy Smith wrote:
As somebody who is still firmly in the 2.x world, I'm worried about the
idea of a 2.x fork. While I have my doubts that 3.x was a good idea,
the fact is, it's here. Having the community fractured between the two
camps is not good. Let's say I'm somebody who wants to contribute some
OSS. I have three basic choices:
1) I can make it 3.x only. Now, (nominally) half of the python
community is unable to realize value from my contribution.
2) I can make it 2.x only. Same thing in reverse.
3) I can make it work on both 2.x and 3.x, which means I'm investing
more effort than I had to if it were single platform.
Any of those alternatives is worse than ideal. Forking 2.x to create an
unofficial 2.8 release would just prolong the situation. As I've stated
before, I don't see any urgency in moving to 3.x, and don't imagine
doing there for another couple of years, but I absolutely can't imagine
moving to a 2.8 fork.
The above strikes me as common sense. Surely that's out of place on
this list? :)
But to be serious why not stick with 2.x if there's no compelling reason
to move? Whatever happened to "if it ain't broke, don't fix it"? And
before anyone says anything please don't start on about the bytes versus
string debate, I'm fairly certain that there are a substantial number of
application areas that don't run into these problems.
--
My fellow Pythonistas, ask not what our language can do for you, ask
what you can do for our language.
Mark Lawrence
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
