| 1 |
Tanstaafl wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 2010-06-09 12:28 PM, Neil Bothwick wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>> On Wed, 9 Jun 2010 18:21:17 +0200, Alex Schuster wrote: |
| 5 |
>> |
| 6 |
>>>> I'm guessing it won't hurt anything, again as long as I don't |
| 7 |
>>>> stupidly switch to it? |
| 8 |
>>>> |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
>>> Right. |
| 11 |
>>> |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
>> And if a script specifically wants Python 3, it is there for it to |
| 14 |
>> use. |
| 15 |
>> |
| 16 |
> Cool, thanks guys... |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
I agree with the other replies. You have it there now so just let it |
| 21 |
be. Just don't switch to it until there is a news item that says |
| 22 |
everything is ready. I would even make sure everything depends on |
| 23 |
python 3 and nothing depends on python 2 before switching, just in case |
| 24 |
you have something that will break and cause you grief. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
To think the devs didn't believe this was going to cause some confusion. |
| 27 |
< sighs > |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Dale |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
:-) :-) |
Archives