Path: csiph.com!aioe.org!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod From: Ben Finney Newsgroups: linux.debian.maint.python Subject: Re: Python Policy: Things to consider for Stretch Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2016 06:40:01 +0100 Message-ID: References: X-Mailbox-Line: From debian-python-request@lists.debian.org Sun Jan 24 05:34:21 2016 Old-Return-Path: X-Amavis-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.68 tagged_above=-10000 required=5.3 tests=[BAYES_00=-2, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, LDO_WHITELIST=-5, MURPHY_DRUGS_REL8=0.02, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Policyd-Weight: using cached result; rate:hard: -6.1 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Lines: 51 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: jigong.madmonks.org User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.4 (gnu/linux) X-Public-Key-ID: 0xAC128405 X-Public-Key-Fingerprint: 517C F14B B2F3 98B0 CB35 4855 B8B2 4C06 AC12 8405 X-Public-Key-URL: http://www.benfinney.id.au/contact/bfinney-pubkey.asc X-Post-From: Ben Finney Cancel-Lock: sha1:6Ue55bNTIXrMI0B6Ihzg0fMP3tM= X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/13468 List-ID: List-URL: List-Archive: https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/85r3h7k0cc.fsf@benfinney.id.au Approved: robomod@news.nic.it Organization: linux.* mail to news gateway Sender: robomod@news.nic.it X-Original-Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2016 16:33:55 +1100 X-Original-Message-ID: <85r3h7k0cc.fsf@benfinney.id.au> X-Original-References: <1705132.RfqMtW1P2v@kitterma-e6430> <1788942.Gcc8N3eft8@kitterma-e6430> <20160123205049.09efb0d9@subdivisions.wooz.org> <1597133.3JM6ycrHqJ@kitterma-e6430> X-Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org Xref: csiph.com linux.debian.maint.python:8145 Scott Kitterman writes: > I don't particularly agree, but if that's correct, then there's a > large amount of change needed throughout the policy. These certainly > aren't the only places this comes up. Yes, that's likely because when the Debian Python policy was initially drafted, there was no Python 3 anywhere close to entering Debian. So “Python” and “Python 2” were less ambiguously conflated at that time. Now that Python 2 and Python 3 are both commonly (and correctly) referred to as “Python”, we need to take more care using the terms for what we mean. > Ambiguous or not, I think the policy is mostly consistent in using > python and python3 vice python2 and python3. Well that's another dimension of confusion :-) The term “python2” and “python3” are named of commands, more than the names of languages. I think you're right that this needs a general clean-up through the policy document, to consistently use: * “python2” to refer to that command only; * “python3” to refer to that command only; * “python” to refer to that command (and I'd suggest deprecating it where feasible); * “Python 2” referring exclusively to that language version 2.x and no other versions of that language; * “Python 3” referring exclusively to that language version 3.x and no other versions of that language; * “Python” referring to the language implemented either as Python 2 or Python 3. > At this point I think internal consistency is probably more important, > so if someone wants to go through and make all the python's that > should be python2, etc then please send in a patch. I'll take that on. Send it to anywhere in particular? Or I can just send it to this forum. -- \ “Pinky, are you pondering what I'm pondering?” “Well, I think | `\ so, but *where* do you stick the feather and call it macaroni?” | _o__) —_Pinky and The Brain_ | Ben Finney