Making code 2.1 compatible
Donn Cave
donn at u.washington.edu
Mon Jul 15 18:42:36 EDT 2002
Quoth Tim Peters <tim.one at comcast.net>:
| [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
Thanks. That does get fairly specific, 18 month release cycle
and limited new features. I infer from the language that they
understand that the new features part has potential problems.
|> 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>.
Matter of perspective. I would probably have picked 2.2 if it
had been left to me, just because it's current. But when I've
proposed it in the past I've suggested the recently out-of-current
release, because that makes it immediately an issue. Either way,
not on the basis of any technical properties of the releases in
question. I don't even know what "stable" means, rather ambiguous
if you ask me.
| Indeed. The PBF is a wonderful thing, and wouldn't exist without Laura's
| vision and energy.
Good deal.
Donn Cave, donn at u.washington.edu
More information about the Python-list
mailing list