On 03/07/2010 07:11 PM, Mark Loeser wrote:
> 
> Absolutely not.  Its actually the opposite.  Until 90+% of the tree just
> works with the new version of python, it should not be stabilized.  The
> stable tree should all Just Work together.  Stabilizing python-3 at this
> point would be the equivalent of me stabilizing gcc-4.5 after its been
> in the tree for a few months and nothing else works with it.  Sure, gcc
> works just fine, but it can't compile half of the tree.
> 

Bad analogy in my opinion. You don't really want to mix and match gcc
versions while compiling packages but with python packages you can
continue installing and running under 2* just fine. If a stable package
uses 2* it's not a blocker for 3*.

> I hope everyone can see that this is a terrible idea and of no use to
> our stable users.  If a stable user really needs Python-3, they will
> have the technical ability to unmask it and use it properly.
> 

In my opinion python-3 should go stable when there's enough ebuilds
needing it as a dependency. It doesn't need to nowhere near 90% of
python packages in the tree.

Regards,
Petteri