1 |
Dnia 2014-01-14, o godz. 14:27:03 |
2 |
Marien Zwart <marienz@g.o> napisał(a): |
3 |
|
4 |
> On the other hand (at least in the short term) running an older PyPy |
5 |
> isn't something I'd expect a lot of people to do: running the latest |
6 |
> and greatest is usually beneficial, not just for features but also for |
7 |
> better performance and fewer bugs. Chances are most users will either |
8 |
> fix their code to work with latest PyPy, or run it under CPython for |
9 |
> compatibility. That seems like an argument not to keep PyPy slotting |
10 |
> if it's awkward to implement. |
11 |
|
12 |
Oh, this reminds me of yet another argument. We're basically supporting |
13 |
only one version of PyPy at a time. This makes the current workflow |
14 |
like: |
15 |
|
16 |
1. add new slot, |
17 |
|
18 |
2. add PYTHON_COMPAT for new slot, |
19 |
|
20 |
3. remove old slot. |
21 |
|
22 |
So the two versions are really supported for a short time. I think we |
23 |
may instead use the following work flow: |
24 |
|
25 |
1. add new PyPy masked, |
26 |
|
27 |
2. test packages, |
28 |
|
29 |
3. unmask new PyPy :). |
30 |
|
31 |
This would also mean that we'd be able to avoid removing old versions |
32 |
of PyPy as fast as we do now. |
33 |
|
34 |
-- |
35 |
Best regards, |
36 |
Michał Górny |