Path: csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!news.mixmin.net!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed3.news.xs4all.nl!xs4all!post.news.xs4all.nl!not-for-mail Return-Path: X-Original-To: python-list@python.org Delivered-To: python-list@mail.python.org X-Spam-Status: OK 0.021 X-Spam-Evidence: '*H*': 0.96; '*S*': 0.00; 'subject:Python': 0.06; 'list?': 0.07; 'string': 0.09; '"if': 0.09; "ain't": 0.09; 'alternatives': 0.09; 'lawrence': 0.09; 'worse': 0.09; 'cc:addr :python-list': 0.11; 'contribute': 0.11; 'python': 0.11; 'jan': 0.12; 'language.': 0.14; 'ideal.': 0.16; 'move?': 0.16; 'roy': 0.16; 'situation.': 0.16; 'language': 0.16; 'fix': 0.17; 'wrote:': 0.18; 'do.': 0.18; 'wed,': 0.18; 'module': 0.19; 'cc:addr:python.org': 0.22; '2.x': 0.24; 'bytes': 0.24; 'stick': 0.24; 'fairly': 0.24; 'cc:2**0': 0.24; 'cc:no real name:2**0': 0.24; "i've": 0.25; 'world,': 0.26; 'certain': 0.27; 'header:In- Reply-To:1': 0.27; 'idea': 0.28; "doesn't": 0.30; 'message- id:@mail.gmail.com': 0.30; "i'm": 0.30; 'url:mailman': 0.30; '3.x': 0.31; 'idea,': 0.31; 'anyone': 0.31; 'run': 0.32; 'another': 0.32; 'says': 0.33; 'url:python': 0.33; 'community': 0.33; 'subject:the': 0.34; 'basic': 0.35; "can't": 0.35; 'common': 0.35; 'good.': 0.35; 'but': 0.35; 'received:google.com': 0.35; 'there': 0.35; 'surely': 0.36; 'url:listinfo': 0.36; 'doing': 0.36; 'url:org': 0.36; 'should': 0.36; 'effort': 0.37; 'half': 0.37; 'application': 0.37; 'two': 0.37; 'depends': 0.38; 'somebody': 0.38; 'whatever': 0.38; 'fact': 0.38; 'pm,': 0.38; 'anything': 0.39; 'moving': 0.39; 'realize': 0.39; 'enough': 0.39; 'unable': 0.39; 'release': 0.40; 'url:mail': 0.40; 'easy': 0.60; 'problems.': 0.60; 'areas': 0.61; 'new': 0.61; 'our': 0.64; 'more': 0.64; 'between': 0.67; 'smith': 0.68; 'stated': 0.69; '2.8': 0.84; 'camps': 0.84; 'choices:': 0.84; 'doubts': 0.84; 'prolong': 0.84; 'to:addr:yahoo.co.uk': 0.84; '\xa0same': 0.84; 'absolutely': 0.87; 'investing': 0.91; 'imagine': 0.93; 'serious': 0.97 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=hMktUtv/D6nPGgYJqHeisBekroM05dPXtWmyORj8vYU=; b=cL9fcsct2lHx/nUg/pzVDQpASlEFPBX2tsn4wTVQbT/oqVX1dLh1Nj1ngYSRJL9yDP IJZA02hl8IQ9B0KMDDXZjaJkP3uEX/XLAJXGjvgm84h2T2Ynuacf6FGsY6OagedtsxsX eXVdJAtG0xNWMaR5uxt6zIMIdeKNVDtDTwIFKhajdCz8ws7IeL9KwK0oJFDM/k8Mw7ZQ 2DC2zAPAJknpciNCpEXll4Zqg/paqAWI/K/JeYyxiLu5K1LV0fmRweiD5MfDrbb6vfRc vjZJK57J4Da81EY+UqDaawbinA/Nl/umuCLMu+h8EQpQzxzTkhhWjJxXkVn8QG4fthdM 9VQw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.58.181.230 with SMTP id dz6mr3742295vec.35.1389192304189; Wed, 08 Jan 2014 06:45:04 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <78d91$52cbf8e9$541826b9$29485@cache1.tilbu1.nb.home.nl> <4b702$52cc262e$541826b9$22985@cache80.multikabel.net> <4cbf$52cc2e82$541826b9$11761@cache70.multikabel.net> <686$52cd4640$541826b9$21896@cache1.tilbu1.nb.home.nl> Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2014 15:45:04 +0100 Subject: Re: the Gravity of Python 2 From: Pedro Larroy To: Mark Lawrence Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b673bdad0e53704ef768970 Cc: python-list@python.org X-BeenThere: python-list@python.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: General discussion list for the Python programming language List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Newsgroups: comp.lang.python Message-ID: Lines: 127 NNTP-Posting-Host: 2001:888:2000:d::a6 X-Trace: 1389192307 news.xs4all.nl 2865 [2001:888:2000:d::a6]:50274 X-Complaints-To: abuse@xs4all.nl Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.python:63481 --047d7b673bdad0e53704ef768970 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 I think for new projects one should go with 3.x this is the right thing to do. If you require a module that's 2.x only it's easy enough to port it unless it depends on some monster like protobuf which doesn't have python3.x support Pedro. On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 3:30 PM, Mark Lawrence wrote: > 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 > --047d7b673bdad0e53704ef768970 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I think for new projects one should go with 3.x this is th= e right thing to do. If you require a module that's 2.x only it's e= asy enough to port it unless it depends on some monster like protobuf which= doesn't have python3.x support


Pedro.


On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 3:30 PM, Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
On 0= 8/01/2014 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. =A0While I have my doubts that 3.x was a good idea,
the fact is, it's here. =A0Having the community fractured between the t= wo
camps is not good. =A0Let's say I'm somebody who wants to contribut= e some
OSS. =A0I have three basic choices:

1) I can make it 3.x only. =A0Now, (nominally) half of the python
community is unable to realize value from my contribution.

2) I can make it 2.x only. =A0Same 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. =A0Forking 2.x to create an<= br> unofficial 2.8 release would just prolong the situation. =A0As I've sta= ted
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. =A0Surely that's out of place on = this list? :)

But to be serious why not stick with 2.x if there's no compelling reaso= n to move? =A0Whatever happened to "if it ain't broke, don't f= ix it"? =A0And before anyone says anything please don't start on a= bout the bytes versus string debate, I'm fairly certain that there are = a substantial number of application areas that don't run into these pro= blems.


--
My fellow Pythonistas, ask not what our language can do for you, ask what y= ou can do for our language.

Mark Lawrence

--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

--047d7b673bdad0e53704ef768970--