| 1 |
Hi! |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
Aside from the remarks made by others (and speaking as someone |
| 4 |
who maintains Python software), there is one reason for me to not |
| 5 |
switch Python 3 to stable yet: lack of compatibility. Software |
| 6 |
that runs with 3.x will not run with any 2.x version as of today |
| 7 |
(and I doubt there will ever be a 2.x version of Python that can |
| 8 |
run 3.x code). |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
As such, upstream devs will have to maintain two branches of |
| 11 |
software for a rather long time. Thing is, some projects just |
| 12 |
don't have the manpower to maintain two branches, so they will |
| 13 |
stay with 2.x versions for now. Yes, it's a catch-22, but I doubt |
| 14 |
that a sufficiently large portion of projects will have a |
| 15 |
3.x-compatible branch/version this year (sufficient meaning |
| 16 |
over 95%). |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
On the other hand, we can patch everything that doesn't run with |
| 19 |
3.x (i.e. "fixing" the shebang lines and maybe assorted paths). |
| 20 |
The Python team is more suited to evaluate the feasibility of |
| 21 |
that. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Regards, |
| 24 |
Tobias |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
PS: As an illustration: just look at how long it took to get a |
| 27 |
2.6-compatible version of mailman into the tree... |
Archives