Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.python > #63352 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Devin Jeanpierre <jeanpierreda@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2014-01-06 13:43 -0800 |
| Last post | 2014-01-06 13:43 -0800 |
| Articles | 1 — 1 participant |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.python
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: "More About Unicode in Python 2 and 3" Devin Jeanpierre <jeanpierreda@gmail.com> - 2014-01-06 13:43 -0800
| From | Devin Jeanpierre <jeanpierreda@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-01-06 13:43 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: "More About Unicode in Python 2 and 3" |
| Message-ID | <mailman.5070.1389044629.18130.python-list@python.org> |
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 top | Article view | comp.lang.python
csiph-web