[ First of all, I wish people (including Digicoolers) would title their messages descriptively, not just say "Important notice" or whatever. I'm sure many of us consider our words important :) ] Second, I am MYSTIFIED (there's no better word) that DC is in such a rush to REQUIRE the use of Python 2.1 for Zope 2.4, when we're still waiting for Py 2.1 final to even come out. Why put all your eggs in that basket, and why force the community to choose between changing to a bleeding-edge Python or retiring to a frozen Zope rev? Does DC not realize that Python has OTHER applications besides Zope? and that for a given community site, changing Pythons might have unexpected side effects in systems whose developers are less gung-ho about rushing to 2.1 than DC is? I thought I'd set my mind at ease by reading the wiki Brian referred to -- which is called "SupportPython21" although it should apparently have been named "RequirePython21" -- but all I could glean from their justifications was [1] it'll make i18n easier (wow, that's huge), [2] there's some other things with strings and such that "may" be useful, and [3] of course there's a raft of other potentially disruptive differences, but hey, at least we found a way to make i18n easier! I can't quite help wondering whether someone at DC has maybe gotten so "into" the development of Py 2.1 that they just can't wait to use its new stuff, whether it's objectively what's best for Zope or not. The prudent thing to do would have been to add features as needed using 1.5.2-compatible code, or at best to offer a "new18n" branch that requires 2.1, which people who are THAT desperate for i18n could choose to follow if they wanted. Then, say 6-12 months after 2.1 is gold, you could unify and require it for 3.0. Instead, for the sake of being able to let the Python developers stick a Zope logo on the 2.1 release, we are risking a boatload of trouble. On the basis of prior performance I do not expect this objection to make any difference in what DC does, but I needed to express it anyway. That gives me a thought - anyone for "Rope"? :)