> 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 ;)

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.

> 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.