2008/12/10 Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams <ivazqueznet@xxxxxxxxx>: > On Tue, 2008-12-09 at 20:40 -0600, Arthur Pemberton wrote: >> 2008/12/9 Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams <ivazqueznet@xxxxxxxxx>: >> > On Tue, 2008-12-09 at 13:05 -0600, Arthur Pemberton wrote: >> >> 2008/12/9 Toshio Kuratomi <a.badger@xxxxxxxxx>: >> >> > So let me reiterate: >> >> > >> >> > * python-3.x will not be in Fedora-11 unless it becomes obvious in the >> >> > next few weeks that we absolutely must be running it for the next release. >> >> > * we need more experience with python-2.6+ & python-3 compatibility >> >> > before we decide whether parallel versions of python are necessary. >> >> > >> >> > .. _[1]: http://python-incompatibility.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/README.txt >> >> > >> >> > -Toshio >> >> >> >> >> >> Well again. Some people (like Toshio) seem to have a grasp on the >> >> matter. All this banter hasn't produced anything more of use. How >> >> about forming a temp SIG to take care of this trusting they do the >> >> right thing? >> > >> > As opposed to the Python SIG that already exists? >> >> No. Seems like the ideal body to come to a decision and let the rest >> of us know. > > Well, most of the active members of the Python SIG have chimed in on > this, and we're all channeling Frankie. > > Now, I do believe this is an important subject and we do need to gauge > the impact Python 3000 has on Fedora, but I believe that we are grossly > unequipped to do so at this time. I'd like to revisit this topic in > about a year (perhaps sooner, depending on circumstances), but for now > everyone just relax. Just to be clear, does that mean no Python 3.0 in parallel either? -- Fedora 9 : sulphur is good for the skin ( www.pembo13.com ) -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
