| 1 |
On 03/07/2010 07:11 PM, Mark Loeser wrote: |
| 2 |
> Sebastian Pipping <sping@g.o> said: |
| 3 |
>> On 03/04/10 19:22, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> All problems, which were blocking stabilization of Python 3, have been fixed. |
| 5 |
>>> Stabilization of Python 3.1.2 is currently scheduled on 2010-04-19. |
| 6 |
>> |
| 7 |
>> #python on Freenode still reads "It's too early to use Python 3.x". |
| 8 |
>> Are they wrong? |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> I'd believe them. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
>> Are we at a point already where we can feed 90% of the Python 2.x code |
| 13 |
>> out there to Python 3 without problems? |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> Doesn't seem that way. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
>> Has QA given their blessing to this? |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> Absolutely not. Its actually the opposite. Until 90+% of the tree just |
| 20 |
> works with the new version of python, it should not be stabilized. The |
| 21 |
> stable tree should all Just Work together. Stabilizing python-3 at this |
| 22 |
> point would be the equivalent of me stabilizing gcc-4.5 after its been |
| 23 |
> in the tree for a few months and nothing else works with it. Sure, gcc |
| 24 |
> works just fine, but it can't compile half of the tree. |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> I hope everyone can see that this is a terrible idea and of no use to |
| 27 |
> our stable users. If a stable user really needs Python-3, they will |
| 28 |
> have the technical ability to unmask it and use it properly. |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
+1 |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
no need to stabilize experimental python, not even convinced it should |
| 34 |
be in ~arch yet (but package.masked for testing) |
Archives