Making code 2.1 compatible

[Tim Peters]

[Donn Cave, on the Python Business Forum]
> Interesting, but only in the sense of "tantalizing".  It reads
> like the author (Michael Hudson?) already knew about the basic
> idea, and assumed the reader does too.

Laura Creighton wrote the FAQ:

    http://pbf.nuxeo.org/faq.html

> I think it would be great if there was some way to arrive at a
> kind of standard milepost release version, where if you couldn't
> support every single release from 1.5.2 to 2.Xb2, maybe you could
> make this one a priority.  "You" means library authors, OS vendors,
> application authors.  It sounds like that might be what they're
> talking about - but since it's already where I'm coming from, I
> could easily be reading my thoughts into it.

They do aim at designating "Py-in-a-tie" releases, keeping them healthy, and
extending their useful lives beyond what volunteers have been historically
willing to do.

> And the choice of 2.2 doesn't help clarify it, since it's a pretty new
> release.

What's to clarify?  The 2.2 line is the most stable Python there is.
They're business people, not Luddites <wink>.

> The point is frankly to kind of deprecate some new releases,
> permanently, so the real test of the idea will be the first new
> release to be rejected for stability.  Just thinking about whether
> these people have the stomache for that,

They do.

> makes me doubt it's what we're talking about after all.  But it is
> cheering to read that Laura Creighton is involved.

Indeed.  The PBF is a wonderful thing, and wouldn't exist without Laura's
vision and energy.