This issue tracker has been migrated to GitHub, and is currently read-only.
For more information, see the GitHub FAQs in the Python's Developer Guide.

Author mhammond
Recipients loewis, mhammond
Date 2009-01-27.09:57:34
SpamBayes Score 8.678231e-09
Marked as misclassified No
Message-id <1233050257.64.0.716100380567.issue5076@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
In-reply-to
Content
> Is it really useful to be have the same stub for 2.x and 3.x? 
> I think it would be better if they mutually ignore each 
> other, and be different.

Good question!  I'm not really aware of the complexities involved in
merging between the various branches, but given the fairly trivial
nature of the patch I figured there were potential advantages in both
identical source and stubs.  I'm happy to work the patch into either
#ifdef based (ie, identical source, different stubs), or "unconditional"
(both source and stubs different) if you prefer - and if so, which of
those 2 do you prefer?

On a related note, its obviously true that the same final installer will
not be able to be shared between 2.x and 3.x, as is currently possible
between pure-python installers between the 2.x series.  However, this
could be addressed in .py code at a later time while still allowing the
same stub to be shared if that is desirable.
History
Date User Action Args
2009-01-27 09:57:38mhammondsetrecipients: + mhammond, loewis
2009-01-27 09:57:37mhammondsetmessageid: <1233050257.64.0.716100380567.issue5076@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
2009-01-27 09:57:36mhammondlinkissue5076 messages
2009-01-27 09:57:34mhammondcreate