On Fri, 2008-12-05 at 21:21 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote: > James Antill wrote: > > We also have _much less_ resources dedicated to python than we do GCC. > > My guess is that if a second python is proposed for py3k, it'll get > > voted down again. > > I think migrating without shipping parallel versions of Python at any point > is a completely unrealistic dream. And yet everyone who's been involved in trying to do that says it's a giant mess, which they have no wish to repeat. And it has been voted down when we had only a single significant application that needed an old version, which would be _much easier_ to manage than your vision of the future where random amounts of applications have migrated and random amounts haven't. Of course, you could be right ... I would just not bet on that happening. > Just look at how many packages still > depend on qt3 and kdelibs3, and how there are still packages depending on > gtk+-1.2 even when plans for GTK+ 3 are already ongoing. We have no reason > to believe Python will be any different. My hope is that as future iterations of both the 2.* and 3.* versions come out (and the applications using them), the porting burden dwindles to something "easy enough" for a flag day. And as I said before, my current guess is that it'll be much more like Apache-httpd's 2.* migration and thus. RHEL-7 (yes, seven) will have a single python that is from the 2.* version stream. Yes, py3k was released yesterday. No, that doesn't mean we need to move to it by next week, month or year. Also as has been said before, a lot of the timeline depends on the various upstreams ... we may be forced to make certain less desirable choices depending on what happens. -- James Antill <james@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Fedora -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
