[Zope-dev] REQUIRING Python 2.1??

anser anser@pobox.com
Fri, 13 Apr 2001 10:35:16 -0400


[ 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"? :)