Re: "More About Unicode in Python 2 and 3"

References	(3 earlier) <ladb8t$o3n$1@ger.gmane.org> <lae85j$pub$1@ger.gmane.org> <laec04$7cd$1@ger.gmane.org> <laf4t8$tsi$1@ger.gmane.org> <laf5kj$6ut$1@ger.gmane.org>
From	Devin Jeanpierre <jeanpierreda@gmail.com>
Date	2014-01-06 13:43 -0800
Subject	Re: "More About Unicode in Python 2 and 3"
Newsgroups	comp.lang.python
Message-ID	<mailman.5070.1389044629.18130.python-list@python.org> (permalink)

Show all headers | View raw

On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 1:02 PM, Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> I find all this intriguing.  People haven't found time to migrate from
> Python 2 to Python 3, but now intend finding time to produce a fork of
> Python 2 which will ease the migration to Python 3.  Have I got that
> correct?

Keeping old, unsupported (by upstream) things up-to-date is a common
operation (e.g. this is what Red Hat does for an entire operating
system). It might take a few hours to backport a module or bugfix you
want, but updating an entire million-LOC codebase would take
significantly longer. Plus, if a benefit of backporting things is an
easier eventual migration to 3.x, it's killing two birds with one
stone.

At any rate it's not a possibility to sneer at and suggest is
improbable or a waste of time. It is a rational outcome for a codebase
of a large enough size.

-- Devin

Back to comp.lang.python | Previous | Next | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: "More About Unicode in Python 2 and 3" Devin Jeanpierre <jeanpierreda@gmail.com> - 2014-01-06 13:43 -0800

csiph-web