Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> 
> Antoine Pitrou <pitrou@free.fr> added the comment:
> 
>> The arguments given in that thread sound a bit strange to me:
>> just because there were no changes to a few files, doesn't really
>> say anything about whether they contain working code or not.
> 
> That was a heuristic. Files which do not get any maintenance for years
> while other similar files do are quite suspicious.
> Given that nobody stepped up to contradict this hypothesis of mine, I
> assume it was right after all ;)

We'll only be able to tell for sure when it's too late: at release
time. We simply don't have any active developers working on more
exotic platforms, but that doesn't mean that Python isn't used
on those platforms.

> More seriously, all the APIs in question (and most of their supporting
> systems: IRIX etc.) seem practically dead. I don't want to rehash that
> discussion here, but you can post on python-dev if you want.

No need... I'm tired of trying to get Python devs on track with
respect to the PEP 11 process, deprecations, etc.

>> You could just as well remove them right now: if the GIL doesn't
>> work on OS/2, then having support for it in the _thread module
>> isn't really worth much, is it ?
> 
> Andrew told me he believed it possible to port the new GIL to OS/2. So
> perhaps he'll do that before 3.2 is out.
>
>> With just NT and POSIX thread support, I think backporting the
>> new GIL implementation to 2.7 is not possible - we'd have to go
>> through a standard PEP 11 deprecation process and there are not
>> enough 2.x releases left for that. It could only be backported
>> as optional feature, to be enabled by a configure option.
> 
> Right. That's what I think too.

I'll close the issue then.