Python 3

[Robert Collins]

On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 2:11 PM, Martin Pool <mbp at canonical.com> wrote:

Meta: I'm not pushing for 3, I did a quick test to see how hard it was
likely to be; we can stop this conversation and just wait and see, at
any point.

I'm fine with the steps you're proposing we do now; waiting and seeing
is a fine strategy, we certainly won't be significantly better or
worse off if we wait (though we may end up with more time-pressure if
3.0 support were to become an important issue in the future for some
reason).

However, I'm going to tug on the threads a little more, because I
think folk are misassessing some of the risks I see.

> On 23 June 2010 11:42, Robert Collins <robertc at robertcollins.net> wrote:
>> 2to3 is indeterministic in the sense that users will have different
>> versions of it, with different capabilities.
>
> That's a funny definition of "indeterministic" but anyhow, it's true
> they may vary in the same kind of way that people will have different
> pythons, kernels, pyrexes, libcs, etc.  What the magnitude of those
> differences may be, I don't know.  It first came in to python2.6
> afaict so we only have that and then later updates in 3.0 and 3.1.
>
> I suppose like for Pyrex we would have the choice of either
> distributing the converted code or getting people to run it.  If we
> distribute the converted code then we could fix it to some particular
> version.  If we expect the user to run it then perhaps we could say
> "bzr is supported on python3.0 using python3.0-2to3".