[python-committers] clinic churn after beta2

[Georg Brandl]

Am 08.01.2014 03:23, schrieb Benjamin Peterson:
> On Tue, Jan 7, 2014, at 06:06 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>> On 8 Jan 2014 08:44, "Eric V. Smith" <eric at trueblade.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > On 1/7/2014 7:33 PM, Benjamin Peterson wrote:
>> > > A PyPI module is not so great because you'll have to change every
>> > > formatting operation to use a function from a module rather than the %
>> > > operator or the format method.
>> >
>> > I think this is the crux of the issue. Are we trying to say "porting
>> > your existing code will be easier", or "change your existing code to
>> > this new library, and we'll provide the library on 2.x and 3.y" (for
>> > some values of x and y).
>> >
>> > I think the former is the right way to go, but I also think if we do
>> > that we should shoot for 3.4, and this would necessitate a delay in 3.4.
>> > Providing this feature for 3.5 might be too late for the target audience
>> > of code porters.
>> 
>> I'm saying hacking in a complex change in a few weeks when there isn't
>> consensus even on the basics of the design just because a few moderately
>> high profile developers failed to understand what "5 years to be the
>> default choice for new projects" meant would be the height of
>> irresponsibility.
> 
> It's not design from scratch, since it should be fairly close to the 2.x
> string formatting mini-languages.

Yes, I think the feature set should be settled upon quickly.

>> The 5 year goal was for the Python 3 ecosystem to be a sufficiently
>> functionally complete alternative to Python 2 for it to be recommended by
>> default for every use case where Python 2 wasn't already being used.
>> 
>> Addressing the key remaining barriers to migration for existing Python 2
>> users would be an excellent objective to attain before we end upstream
>> support for Python 2.7, but it's one that would be better addressed by a
>> slightly shorter dev cycle than normal for 3.5 than it would be by
>> falling
>> into the "just one more feature" trap for Python 3.4.
> 
> I think a shorter cycle for 3.5 is fine, too.

Great!  I agree with Nick that 6 months is too short, but I would definitely
start with betas after 6 months.

Georg