Re: Proposed Modules, My Take

[Maciej Katafiasz <ml mathrick org>]

Dnia 19-01-2005, śro o godzinie 21:11 -0500, Sean Middleditch napisał:
> > It is also worth noting that some of the improvements in Python over the 
> > years have been made in response to the needs of large extensions like 
> > pygtk.  If you froze the Python version requirement for pygtk to the 
> > version available when Gnome 2.0 was released, you'd never be able to 
> > write a non-broken threaded pygtk program until Gnome 3, for instance.
> 
> Not true.  Newer versions of GNOME would just depend on newer versions
> of Python.  The problem is that then you could well end up with, say,
> GNOME 2.12 depending on three versions of Python (since you'd need to
> keep the older ones around for backwards compatibility).  I think that's
> just a loss that has to be accepted if GNOME wants to depend on software
> with a release cycle and management like Python - it's the price you
> pay.

Umm, how would GNOME depending on/recommending fix it? Either you depend
on given Python version and keep API/ABI, for the price of multiple
versions lying around / version frozen till the end of major series, or
depend on 'available' version, and then accept that interpreter part of
GNOME Python bindings platform (and therefore GNOME Python platform as a
whole) can break some apps every once in a while. Not that I am against
GNOME recommending particular Python release, it could potentially ease
the pain, but it doesn't remove the need of making fundamental choice
here.

Cheers,
Maciej

PS. If James says the API is stable enough, I see no point in further
discussing this. All we can do is humbly accept the fact and move on ;)

-- 
Maciej Katafiasz <ml mathrick org>