Message80637
> 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. |
|
Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
2009-01-27 09:57:38 | mhammond | set | recipients:
+ mhammond, loewis |
2009-01-27 09:57:37 | mhammond | set | messageid: <1233050257.64.0.716100380567.issue5076@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
2009-01-27 09:57:36 | mhammond | link | issue5076 messages |
2009-01-27 09:57:34 | mhammond | create | |
|