On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 6:32 AM, Toshio Kuratomi <a.badger@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 02:40:56AM -0400, Bohuslav Kabrda wrote:
>>
>> The problem is that you're basically saying "my mental model is the right
>> one", which is not necessarily true for everyone (and not necessarily true
>> generally). Taking your arguments a bit further, Python 2.6 and 2.7 are
>> different languages too, since there are some backward incompatible
>> additions to Python 2.7.
>>
> Even more directly, I am saying that your mental model is wrong. Now then,
> I assumed that you would not find that palatable therefore I backed my
> mental model up with links to the python-dev mailing list. (The three
> threads from the PEP and the earlier one that I linked to explicitly in my
> email). What are the links to upstream that you are basing your mental
> model on?
Ignoring the naming/versioning/PR aspects, Python 3 is developed by
the approximately the same group of developers, who have been quite
public about planning to stop maintenance of the Python 2 branch.
That means Fedora will need to migrate eventually[1], so thinking
about the two versions as just continuing the same language makes more
_practical sense for Fedora_. Treating them as two separate languages
that can just peacefully coexist obfuscates the need to migrate, and
the need for every Python package maintainer to plan for migration.
Mirek
[1] Ignoring the possibilities that upstream will change their mind
about Python 2, or that somebody will pick it up and continue
maintaining it. For all I know that might well happen - but from what
I've seen I don't feel comfortable betting the ability to continue to
run anaconda, yum, koji and other critical infrastructure on such an
outcome.
--
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
