Python 2.7 for Maverick

[Scott Kitterman]

None from me.

Scott K

"Barry Warsaw" <barry at canonical.com> wrote:

>Sorry about that blank message, I'm not sure what happened.  I meant to say:
>
>On Jun 17, 2010, at 06:11 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
>
>>That makes sense.  Enabling Python 2.7 now, but not making it the default
>>allows us to build out the stack, but also iron out any problems in a PPA so
>>that as soon as N opens, we can just flip the switch.
>
>One other thing we should decide: which Python 3 version should we include in
>Maverick?
>
>At UDS, I had hoped to go with 3.2, but I now think that's too ambitious.
>First, building out the Python 2.7 stack is taking more work than I thought
>and second, I'm not sure it's worth going through the whole pre-approval for
>SRUs to get us from what will be 3.2beta at the time of Maverick's feature
>freeze, to 3.2 final after its release.  Also, given how little Python 3 is
>used in production these days, I'm not sure there's a lot of benefit to being
>so aggressive.
>
>I think we should stick with Python 3.1.x for Maverick and switch to 3.2 for
>N.  Any objections?
>
>-Barry