[Python-Dev] 3.1 focus (was Re: for __future__ import planning)

[Brett Cannon]

On Sat, Oct 4, 2008 at 12:45 AM, Georg Brandl <g.brandl at gmx.net> wrote:
> Barry Warsaw schrieb:
>> On Oct 3, 2008, at 5:26 PM, Benjamin Peterson wrote:
>>
>>> So now that we've released 2.6 and are working hard on shepherding 3.0
>>> out the door, it's time to worry about the next set of releases. :)
>>
>>> I propose that we dramatically shorten our release cycle for 2.7/3.1
>>> to roughly a year and put a strong focus stabilizing all the new
>>> goodies we included in the last release(s). In the 3.x branch, we
>>> should continue to solidify the new code and features that were
>>> introduced. One 2.7's main objectives should be binding 3.x and 2.x
>>> ever closer.
>>
>> There are several things that I would like to see us concentrate on
>> after the 3.0 release.  I agree that 3.1 should be primarily a
>> stabilizing release.  I suspect that we will find a lot of things that
>> need tweaking only after 3.0 final has been out there for a while.
>>
>> I think 2.7 should continue along the path of convergence toward 3.x.
>> The vision some of us talked about at Pycon was that at some point
>> down the line, maybe there's no difference between "python2.9 -3" and
>> "python3.3 -2".
>
> Especially 3.1 should also be a release where we focus as much on the
> community as on the code. There are many people out there for whom
> Python 3, as an incompatible language, is not an easy step to make,
> especially those with huge 2.x codebases on their hands. They have
> two problems: The libraries they depend on aren't ported, and the
> KLOC of code they care about are hard and tedious work to port, not
> to mention that it typically isn't viewed as productive work by those
> who pay them.
>
> We need to make 2to3 and related tools reliable and do more showcases
> of porting, like Martin did with Django, so that people have real-world
> examples at their disposal, by which they can estimate their own
> porting needs. (Waiting for the extended community to deliver such
> examples may be a mistake.)
>
> We also need to commit to help people with porting. I propose a new
> mailing list (e.g. python3-porting), parallel to python-list,
> specifically for people going that way. I think it will help to
> focus the community effort of getting Python 3 off the ground.
>

This is a good idea; python-help for porting.

> Last not least, there should be a *central* location on python.org where
> specifically all resources on 2->3 transition are collected. Talks,
> documents, links, and some crucial information many people seem to miss,
> such as how long the 2.x series will at least be maintained. They depend
> on this.

That seems reasonable if someone gets around to doing it. =)

-Brett